United People Declaration poll [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

Chicodoodoo

19th March 2011, 17:05

This poll is to gauge support for the Declaration listed below.

If you need background information, or if you have reservations about supporting the Declaration and would like to express those reservations, please do so in the thread United People - an Alternative World Order (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15249-United-People-an-Alternative-World-Order).

=== United People Declaration ===

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for all of the common people to organize and unite for the common good, they should declare their reasons and intentions.

Not all truths are self-evident, especially when there are those that want the truth hidden or controlled. The truth is that the common good has not been served by existing human organizations. This truth must be revealed and communicated to all, and it must be remedied. That is the purpose of this Declaration.

There are natural rights that belong to all human beings, and these rights are being denied by selfish individuals and organizations. This must not be tolerated, or tyranny and mass suffering will surely follow. Among the natural rights of all human beings are:

Clean air that sustains health
Clean water that sustains health
Clean food that sustains health
Basic equality
Basic liberty
Basic fairness
Basic privacy
Basic care
Basic peace
Equal access to truthful information

Two rules help determine what constitutes “clean” and “basic”, and they are:

1. The Golden Rule – Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
2. The Physicians Creed – Do no harm.

There is a very long list of existing actions that violate the natural rights of common people and makes the unification and organization of all human beings necessary and proper. Here are some:

The orchestration of numerous wars for gain and profit.
The poisoning of humanity by way of depleted uranium munitions.
The genocide of people for political, ideological, or economic reasons.
The monopolization of communications to control information and minds.
The manufactured illusion of self-government when there is very little.
The manufactured illusion of freedom when there is very little.
The manufactured illusion of privacy when there is very little.
The manufacturing of illusions for control of various populations.
The deliberate manufacture and release of disease agents and organisms.
The deliberate distribution of “medications” designed to maim, kill, or control.
The suppression of important information regarding non-terrestrial life.
The corruption of systems like money, health care, food production, and entertainment for purposes of selfish gain or control.
The genetic re-engineering of destructive life forms for selfish gain or control.
The clandestine manufacture and distribution of illegal drugs for selfish gain or control.
The destructive manipulation of the natural environment that sustains all life.
The deliberate suppression of “free energy” technology that would improve the world.
Etc.

Those behind these violations of natural human rights do so willfully, criminally, and secretly. They represent but a tiny minority of the human population. The vast majority of humans have been fooled, tricked, deceived, dulled, lulled, purchased, coerced, or otherwise distracted from the truth of these violations against them by this tiny minority.

For these reasons, we, the people of this planet that is our only refuge and life-support system, do declare our intent to unite and organize in support of our natural rights and in opposition to any that would deny them.

=== End Declaration ===

skippy

19th March 2011, 22:02

vaLLxPtmyPI

skippy

19th March 2011, 22:44

I feel a lot of people here at Avalon are hesitating to take position. Personally, I think this declaration is one of the most important things ever made by men. I'm not joking. For me, this declaration made by mortal human beings, is like a stargate. It cries out to the infinite other end of the universe. No need for spaceships, ETs, mushrooms or whatsoever. This declaration is the portal for us human beings. With our means, as simple as it might seem, we finally claim our legitimate place between the stars. But, courage is required. Please, post the reason why you are not voting the poll or why you're against the declaration as-is. As far as I can see it, the declaration put forward here, is only a draft and will always stay draft; while we, the united people of the world, are infinite.

Skippy.

OnyxKnight

19th March 2011, 23:38

Who the hell is that one person who voted 'No'?

As this poll is not public, I'd like to see the explanation as to why somebody would 'not' support this, in other words, would prefer the old system?

skippy

19th March 2011, 23:49

Carefull OnyxKnight, with all my respect, but we're not seeking consensus here. 1000 times more credits for those expressing their disagreement then those staying silently on the sideslines.. However, I agree with you that it would be nice to learn about the motivations of those voting against this initiative. Their feedback is important to improve the declaration of the United People of the World.

Arpheus

20th March 2011, 00:17

Wot 2 peopled voted no and didnt even bother posting something LOL,way to go!Not a nice way to start if you ask me ouch!

skippy

20th March 2011, 00:25

Wot 2 peopled voted no and didnt even bother posting something LOL,way to go!Not a nice way to start if you ask me ouch!

Arpheus, we would love to know what makes you voted against this declaration?

Maria Stade

20th March 2011, 00:40

OnyxKnight

20th March 2011, 00:41

Carefull OnyxKnight, with all my respect, we're not seeking consensus here. 1000 times more credits for those expressing their disagreement then those staying silently on the sideslines.. However, I agree with you that we need explanations why somebody would 'not' support this Their feedback is needed to improve the declaration of the United People of the World.

Well, I guess not. But, these people at least owe us a comment on why they voted 'no', we deserve that much I would think?

Maybe its not that they prefer the old system, maybe they didn't like the final version of the 'Decleration', whatever the case, they should voice their opinion and explain themselves.

And now is two....

skippy

20th March 2011, 00:48

Wot 2 peopled voted no and didnt even bother posting something LOL,way to go!Not a nice way to start if you ask me ouch!

I can see the free will is at stake here ? Hmm something not right here ! Bureaucrats maybe.
I havent polled there is some thing feeling very wrong with all this I cant point my finger on it !
Maria

Hi Maria, appreciate your feedback. I invite you to read and meditate on the contents of the declaration. Are you with it or are you against it? Both ways are fine with us. This is just an inititiave of human beings trying to defend their home. Please post your remarks and we will update the contents of the declaration accordingly. Don't worry, everything is just fine!
Skip

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 03:40

One of the people that voted "NO" sent me a private message to explain their vote. I very much appreciate that, and I would like to share it with you all. I have permission from the sender to do so. I have also included my comments to his explanations. This exchange was slightly edited to allow the sender to remain anonymous. This is essentially my private message back to the sender. The sender's words are those that are quoted.

==========

Great stuff, my friend! You might be surprised to learn that I considered your perspective early on.

Your basic argument is that we are not playing by "their" rules, and thus the declaration is not legitimate. You are correct that we are not playing by their rules, and that is being done by deliberate design. You are also correct that "they" will see this declaration as meaningless, and that too is by deliberate design.

Let me address your concerns in the order that you presented them.

In my replies in other threads I share the proper way to achieve 'independence' from the 'system'.

We do not want to confront the PTB, which is why we are not declaring independence from their system. That will occur anyway through a natural evolution.

The title of your Declaration means nothing to anyone, other than to those who support it; for example, a government official, when first looking at it, will want to know what it is in hand - if and when that happens.

The title is self-descriptive, declaring the intent of the people to unite. To a government official, it is inconsequential. That's good, from our perspective. The intent is not to confront the existing system. The intent is to unite and organize the people so that they can determine the system they wish to exist under. The existing system will simply wither away as support is withdrawn from it.

You are serving the system you wish not to be a part of, therefore the wording used (common to the masses) must reflect the wording 'they' (the ruling class) are already familiar with.

I would argue that by using their language, we would be serving their system, as in playing directly into their hands. The rules of the system are written to serve the system, not the people. It would not make sense to use those rules if we, the people, plan to be successful.

What should be sought is a 'Declaration of Independence' from the state - other declarations, such as the one you have posted, could be something the supporters (members of) can 'sign off' on - as it will only have meaning to them.

Declaring independence from the state is a good way to attract unwanted attention and become a target. That is something we want to avoid. Independence will happen naturally, much like our current dependence on the existing system happened naturally.

Briefing the body of the material, there are no elements or authorities given; there are definitions of sorts, but nothing that supports or gives notice to 'them' (the ruling class). To put it in perspective, that would be like you (as a sovereign) being shown the Highway Traffic Act by 'them' (the ruling class) - what would it mean to you?

From the perspective of a united people, there is only one source of authority, and that is the voice of the people. No other authority is recognized. As I have said, if the bureaucrats shrug off the Declaration as having no meaning (by their rules), that works to our advantage.

The Declaration is written in plain language to convey a clear meaning. This is in direct opposition to how the system writes – in convoluted language designed to obfuscate meaning. That too is by design. This is a document for the people, not for the system.

I chose 'NO', because if anyone uses the material you have posted to be 'free from the state', it would do nothing but potentially cause hardship - something I cannot, in good faith, support – I do support your motives and attempt.

It is important to emphasize that we are not declaring our intention to be free from the state. We are declaring our intention to unite and organize. It may be highly likely that such an action could lead to a new state. There is, after all, a growing sense that people are fed up with the existing situation. Will it cause hardship if the people unite and organize? Why should it? What “state” would publicly oppose such a movement? Certainly not any legitimate state.

The process of actual independence does not have to be complex, as the establishment makes it out to be, or even how others have quasi attempted. When 'you' do it right, 'you' will be 'marked', whether you do it by force (avoid this if possible) or passively by a Declaration of Independence.

Yes, from the perspective of the existing system, if you do it right, you will be marked. We will therefore not do it “right”, according to their system, for we have no desire to be marked. The current system is one of deceit and betrayal. We will not play by their rules, and we will not play into their hands.

I hope this has been helpful - as this has been, here and in other threads, my only objective.

I am convinced that your purpose is to be helpful, and I truly appreciate your efforts.

Flash

20th March 2011, 04:02

I find the comments of the "no" voter very interesting. I would like to hear about the other one as well and from those that abstain from voting. 2 no sayers out of 28 this is around 7%. This means that 7% of people may question the declaration, not understand its meaning, and this, in a highly aware group of people. Imagine the numbers in a regular group of ordinary, non conspiracy people. Imagine what it would be once translated in a multitude of languages, with all the mistranslations that always occur in the process, or words that have no true equivalence (just the word people can be translated 2-3 different ways in French depending on the orgininal intent of the author). I would really like to hear all feedbacks, suggestions and commentaries possible, starting with the no sayers.

I seriously agree with Skippy. This declaration is of prime importance, I feel it throughout (but don't consciously know why).

This polls plays the role, to me, of an excellent focus group prior to launching. From this, we could learn how to rephrase, make it punchy yet non attractive for PTB. How to make the title better for example in order to be read in the avalanche of e-mails everyone receives on a daily basis.

Good testing ground Avalon. We are the forbearers of the new world. The spreaders of the light.

Just in teasing, can you imagine Chicoodoo being mentioned as the first writer of the world declaration that led to the constitution (the Jefferson of the new world) lol

Dennis Jonathan

20th March 2011, 04:31

This reminds me of something Alex Collier said at the PC conference in '09. It was a comment the Andromedans made regarding our unique ability as humans. He spoke about our ability to create something from nothing, through our intent. The example he gave was the idea that every human was born with certain civil rights, and quoted the civil rights movement.

It's pretty amazing when you think about it. The intent behind this basic truth brought it into existence. This is no different IMO.

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 04:31

Just in teasing, can you imagine Chicoodoo being mentioned as the first writer of the world declaration that led to the constitution (the Jefferson of the new world) lol

I was talking to a friend a week or so ago, and I mentioned how this Declaration practically wrote itself. It simply flowed through me, the accumulation of a lifetime of writing about my frustrations with the insane world around me. I said maybe someday it will be known as the great work of the ridiculously-named Chicodoodoo, that mysterious writer from the days of the Internet that nobody would ever know.

Much to her own delight, she replied, "I know." And with that we both burst out laughing!

ghostrider

20th March 2011, 05:07

anything different than the matrix works for me

Maria Stade

20th March 2011, 05:16

I have read it again and I can support it.
I had a negative reaction on the word "basic" as they have been cutting down the basic system here !
It had nothing to do with the writing !
It is also sad that this kind of declaration is ever needed.

The list could be much longer !

Well done Chicoodoo :grouphug:

Maria

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 05:25

I had a negative reaction on the word "basic" as they have been cutting down the basic system here !

I had a problem with that word, too. What the heck does "basic" mean? That's why the Golden Rule and the Physician's Creed were absolutely essential. Together, they create a "floor", a minimum acceptable standard based on the combined and dynamic standards of the people.

Zook

20th March 2011, 05:29

Who the hell is that one person who voted 'No'?

As this poll is not public, I'd like to see the explanation as to why somebody would 'not' support this, in other words, would prefer the old system?

In Saddam's Iraq, I believe 99% voted for his regime. That 2 0f 36 individuals (to date) did not vote for an intelligent declaration ... only means that everyone gets representation, even those who seek no bed with intelligent thought, who seek passage on a turnip truck, who prefer the status quo of madness normalized by inertia.

:smow::typing:

ps: Be tolerant of the dissenters, even the most vacuous ... for the false patriot's fort is not yet anachronous.

astrid

20th March 2011, 05:39

We are declaring our intention to unite and organize

I personally think that this is the FIRST major step in the process.

We are powerful as individuals , but exponentially so, combined, united and organized.

We can discuss details and semantics until the "cows come home" but really we are running out of time.

That is all very left brain, and old paradigm thinking, where as is the right brain that will be really what gets us out of here.

Creative , adaptable, able to shift gears and move in a whole other direction if need be.

Looking at old problems with totally fresh eyes, being random when need be, don't forget its the predictable that makes us easy to program and manipulate.

Personally i think its way more efficient to set the intention, and iron out the details as we are living it,

we are talking about a whole new paradigm here,

so it follows that we will be creating and building new ways of living, relating, communicating,

i'm tipping we don't even have the words yet for some of the concepts and ideas we are going to be

implementing.

To be honest i find the arguing and semantics really frustrating.

You can be very good at logic and arguing a point, but it doesn't mean you are right.

It can just mean one is good at logic and arguing.

Meanwhile nothing gets off the ground.

I commend u Chicodoodoo for taking that big first step for us here.

I hope we don't have another 50 page thread with people tearing it to sheds.

It's the intention that we are in essence voting for anyways,
and i hope people see that.

blessings,

Astrid

Icecold

20th March 2011, 05:46

astrid

20th March 2011, 05:50

Originally Posted by Zook

In Saddam's Iraq, I believe 99% voted for his regime.

You see this is what i'm talking about. How does this analogy even belong in this thread??

shezz... i love you Zook , but really.......

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 05:53

In Saddam's Iraq, I believe 99% voted for his regime.

Wasn't his campaign slogan "Vote for me or die!"

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 05:59

BTW, the list does not address freedom of speech...interesting.

Ah, but it does. Do you not see the incredible utility of the Golden Rule?

Zook

20th March 2011, 06:09

Hi Astrid,

Originally Posted by Zook
In Saddam's Iraq, I believe 99% voted for his regime.
You see this is what i'm talking about. How does this analogy even belong in this thread??
shezz... i love you Zook , but really.......

The analogy illustrates that we should tolerate dissent, e.g. not be perturbed if 2 people vote against the 34. Saddam didn't tolerate dissent. And we don't want to be like Saddam.

:smow::typing:

Icecold

20th March 2011, 06:16

Do you not see the incredible utility of the Golden Rule?

Oh yes, but not in the context of freedom of speech.

If the Golden Rule is so utlitarian, then why do you need the other RULES?

Maria Stade

20th March 2011, 06:33

I can see the free will is at stake here ? Hmm something not right here ! Bureaucrats maybe.
I havent polled there is some thing feeling very wrong with all this I cant point my finger on it !

I ll need to think and see what it is !

Be back later !

Maybe just in the force feeld ?

Kind regards !

Maria

Yes, I haven't voted yet. But the above posts say something about freedom of speech.

I'll wait a little while to see how this pans out. :cool:

BTW, the list does not address freedom of speech...interesting.

No it didnt LOL !

But it must be OK to say NO to if there is something not in line with the spirit.

Onyxnight
Who the hell is that one person who voted 'No'?

Intressting !! What up with You ! Maybe there should be only a yes button in your kingdom ?

:flock::flock::flock: BÄÄÄÄ

Zook

20th March 2011, 06:39

In Saddam's Iraq, I believe 99% voted for his regime.
Wasn't his campaign slogan "Vote for me or die!"

Nope ... those were his first words ever uttered (even before he said "Mama" or "Papa", I think).

:smow::typing:

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 06:55

To be honest i find the arguing and semantics really frustrating.

You can be very good at logic and arguing a point, but it doesn't mean you are right.

I hope we don't have another 50 page thread with people tearing it to shreds.

It's the intention that we are in essence voting for anyways, and i hope people see that.

Very good point. I realized when I put the Declaration out to Avalon for editing suggestions that we were all taking a very big risk. Imagine if Thomas Jefferson had put his Declaration of Independence out on a public forum for editing. Would the final result have been better or worse? Design by government committee comes to mind. Yet, I knew it had to be done, and I had to have some faith in the people of Avalon. After all, the Declaration is not meant to be my baby, it's meant to be our baby. On the other hand, I also needed to reserve some faith in myself to defend the contents of the Declaration. My focus all along was that it be integral (holographic), concise, clear, brief, simple, thorough, real, honest, heart-felt, and universal. Did I succeed? That's where I needed Avalon, not exactly to edit the document, but to edit the author, who can then make any necessary adjustments without degrading the integrity and character of the document.

In a way, I am reminded of Project Avalon itself and the vision of its creator, Bill Ryan. Despite carefully considering the free-flowing input from all of the members here, Bill maintains final authority over the direction of Avalon. To a large extent, we trust him, and to a large extent, he trusts us. It is a good balance, and it has served us all well. We have all benefited. The common good has been well served. That is the ultimate goal.

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 07:11

Do you not see the incredible utility of the Golden Rule?

Oh yes, but not in the context of freedom of speech.

If the Golden Rule is so utilitarian, then why do you need the other RULES?

There are only two rules in the Declaration, and they make a good team.

1. The Golden Rule – Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
2. The Physicians Creed – Do no harm.

I see them as very much applying to free speech, both from an individual's point of view, and from society's point of view. Do you not wish to speak freely, without causing real harm? Then you must allow others to do the same.

Icecold

20th March 2011, 09:54

I see them as very much applying to free speech,

Free speech should be included as a right.

Else a witch hunt will ensue....something that is all too common

Who the hell is that one person who voted 'No'?

As this poll is not public, I'd like to see the explanation as to why somebody would 'not' support this, in other words, would prefer the old system?

these people at least owe us a comment on why they voted 'no', we deserve that much I would think?

Maybe its not that they prefer the old system, maybe they didn't like the final version of the 'Decleration', whatever the case, they should voice their opinion and explain themselves.

And now is two....

I find the comments of the "no" voter very interesting. I would like to hear about the other one as well and from those that abstain from voting. 2 no sayers out of 28 this is around 7%. This means that 7% of people may question the declaration, not understand its meaning, and this, in a highly aware group of people. Imagine the numbers in a regular group of ordinary, non conspiracy people. Imagine what it would be once translated in a multitude of languages, with all the mistranslations that always occur in the process, or words that have no true equivalence (just the word people can be translated 2-3 different ways in French depending on the orgininal intent of the author). I would really like to hear all feedbacks, suggestions and commentaries possible, starting with the no sayers.

As an anarchist, the fact that it is perceived that it is a negative, and not a right of people not to accept these principles...for whatever reason... to me is another form of authoritarian control.

If you go down this road it will lead back to where the elites are now....it will be the case that there is just a new form of authoritarian control....prisons...coercion...policing...the whole box and dice.

I believe many people want the same system in a different form. They are not prepared to move away from the elite control system. Only to disguise it so that it appears to be unrecognizable. But in reality its the same old system.

I still have not voted....call out the inquisition.

Hawkwind

20th March 2011, 10:42

SKAWF

20th March 2011, 10:48

i havnt voted.

i'm sure that the motives of the thread are pure.
an area of slight concern is, there has been a reaction over a couple voting no.
the fact is, they voted no. that should be all there is to it.
otherwise it goes beyond a poll, into an area where one has to justify their position.

the other thing is,
there are universal laws.
i believe people MUST be allowed to do whatever they want, good or bad.
freewill i believe, and freedom of speech for that matter, are beyond legislation.
in a free society, one must allow for the fact that all things are possible.

i'm not going to be polarised as a supporter or dissentor.
as it is i make my choices and i accept the consequences,
i'm uneasy about adherance to yet another external ideal

this universe is set up with an infinty to be experienced in an infinite number of ways.
you must allow for freewill, and the fact that people sometimes do wrong. they will recieve their own karma

i've just realised that what i mean by all this is,
i live in accordance with universal law, and no other.
if you offer me a situation where i can be one thing or the other, i will choose neither,
i think it should be up to the individual to make their own declaration in their own terms.
after all, it will be them that have to live with it

i'm really sorry if this post appears to be against the concept., its not meant to be.
i'm a bit sleepy right now, and will no doubt read the declaration again with a fresh pair of eyes,
but for now, this is my position.

steve

Hawkwind

20th March 2011, 11:26

i think it should be up to the individual to make their own declaration in their own terms.
BINGO! Now, how do we get those disparate ideas and actions united and moving in a mutually beneficial direction?

i'm a bit sleepy right now, and will no doubt read the declaration again with a fresh pair of eyes,
Sweet dreams, but either your eyes are working just fine or I need to get mine examined.

buckminster fuller

20th March 2011, 12:45

ICecold,

I think the intent behind the declaration is not to change the system, but to help promote a new paradigm for us to express ourselves as free creative beings. The idea is to unite behind clear, simple concepts. This unity is the only possible tool that we have today to get rid of the old system. The declaration is not a constitution, it shouldn't close any doors, as what comes next is the birth of a new society. It is not "the project" , it is what can make the idea of a new project for society doable. Without unity there will be no real change. Without breaking free from this individualistic state of mind, there will be no progress. Anarchy is a nice ideology, but that's all it is.. An idea. It is not rooted in reality except for those that sacrified themselves into wars, revolutions and political staging.
Have no fear, people can reject the declaration if they don't want it, and we will never get everyone's adhesion to it anyway, by fear or misunderstanding. It is not needed. What we need is the numbers. What we need is the opportunity to challenge our minds by creating this new paradigm. Anyway, there will be no more fixing of the old paradigm, it is already dead, and once it has been figured out by the many, we will move on if we succeed in uniting.

No need for cynicism, no need to project one's fear unto people neither. It's time to forget about all those f..g ideologies that have been used to enslave people, either physically or mentally.

Peace

TimelessDimensions

20th March 2011, 17:25

this United People Declaration could be simplified further.

like an algebra problem e.g.

simplify:

2a = 4b + 2c
a = 2b + c

Icecold

20th March 2011, 17:28

Buck:

I think the intent behind the declaration is not to change the system, but to help promote a new paradigm for us to express ourselves as free creative beings. The idea is to unite behind clear, simple concepts. This unity is the only possible tool that we have today to get rid of the old system. The declaration is not a constitution, it shouldn't close any doors, as what comes next is the birth of a new society. It is not "the project"

This unity is the only possible tool that we have today to get rid of the old system.

I don't agree. It a 'system' of control...rules...and laws. It will lead to power struggles, elitism, authoritarian control.

Unity of consciousness is a different kettle of fish. That I support.

Not unity behind a set of rules and regulations.

norman

20th March 2011, 17:39

We shouldn't define it.

If we define it, we name it.

If we name it, we limit it.

If we limit it, we lose it.

It's unlimited.

OnyxKnight

20th March 2011, 17:52

@ Chicodoodoo - Interesting that the guy wanted to remain anonymous. Why explain his view only to you? If he hold his views strong enough he shouldn't be afraid of putting them as subject for debate in this thread. People resort to other means when they know their views won't be accepted from the majority of the forum membership. And there are a lot of us guys here. Which means, there is something off with their view of things, that they wish to remain hidden.

@ Maria - I have my own kingdom waiting for me when this body withers away (perceive this as whatever you like). I'm just trying to support something nice here, that I don't get it from a politician trying to sell me snake oil when it comes to changes, okay? I'm tired of waiting and chanting around for people "to create a common list of goals for which we would go against teh current system, and unite", when I see the zygote of this being created on Avalon. When you vote 'no' on a declaration like this, considering the details, any normal person would ask the "WHY" question, and expect an explanation.

@ Icecold - Freedom of speech is very tolerated here. In fact, I would love to here what those who voted no have to say. Nobody is shutting them up, but themselves.

Flash

20th March 2011, 17:52

I support the time and energy you are putting into trying to make the world a better place, so I won't vote no. Your ideas about how to accomplish that seem a good deal different than mine, so I won't vote yes.

I understand, we are all quite different and this is what is great. If something is built with diverse views, from all over the world, and that it hold the running course, it will be a winner, we will start changing the world truly. So Hawkwind, what would be your views, if you were to do it? Of course, you are free to answer.

From Icecold
As an anarchist, the fact that it is perceived that it is a negative, and not a right of people not to accept these principles...for whatever reason... to me is another form of authoritarian control.

If you go down this road it will lead back to where the elites are now....it will be the case that there is just a new form of authoritarian control....prisons...coercion...policing...the whole box and dice.

I believe many people want the same system in a different form. They are not prepared to move away from the elite control system. Only to disguise it so that it appears to be unrecognizable. But in reality its the same old system.

I still have not voted....call out the inquisition

I did not understand clearly what you meant with quoting me, was it that everone could be heard or else? I do not understand the link for example between the principles (which ones) and the authoritarian forms of control. Would you be kind enough to clarify, just for me if others caught it. Thanks, and no obligation, of course.

editing; after re reading you 3 times Icecold, I am starting to see and maybe comprehend what you meant, but not sure.

Flash

20th March 2011, 18:03

We shouldn't define it.

If we define it, we name it.

If we name it, we limit it.

If we limit it, we lose it.

It's unlimited.

I understand and in a fifth dimension, or in a philosophical point of view, I entirely agree with what you say. However, in the 3rd dimension with what we are caught with (PTB), we need some catalyser that will get people together first, then to move in order to create the new reality. Not having PTB blocking every attemps I would follow your views.

I think some declaration signed worlwide like this could help to start the togetherness process.

The written words must however be so strong that it encompass religions, countries, languages, cultures, etc. Chicodoodoo cannot do it alone. Input from all point of views are needed. IMHO

edited; By the way, Icecold, unity of consciousness is really neat! imho

GK76

20th March 2011, 18:11

I agree with the 'no' voters, but I voted 'yes', both parties have good points. Any change from this control system is an improvement, even just to acknowledge the chasm which separates the people from the control system; to stand back and see the woods, the first step is to awaken. There will be a time for the natural collapse of the control system, effectively it is happening constantly in the typical entropic way we'd expect anything, even a concept or ideal, to waste away.

I like your words Chicodoodoo, the declaration may not be where we end up, but, it is a very good start and a goal to aim for. The alternative is to wait unconsciously without even the idea that freedom is possible, it's been said many times before: How do you know you are in a prison if you can't see the bars? The declaration shows the bars, the rest is left to the natural flow of life.

buckminster fuller

20th March 2011, 18:12

Maria Stade

20th March 2011, 18:44

Onyxnight
@ Maria - I have my own kingdom waiting for me when this body withers away (perceive this as whatever you like). I'm just trying to support something nice here, that I don't get it from a politician trying to sell me snake oil when it comes to changes, okay?

You didnt support In a nice way, and did in fact make people doubt this by your action.
The kingdom Is inside but maybe you find it some day.
My best wishes for you.

Onyxnight
I'm tired of waiting and chanting around for people "to create a common list of goals for which we would go against teh current system, and unite", when I see the zygote of this being created on Avalon.

Do not chant ower me it is not needed at all. Dont tire your self like that, its not useful.
Yes we are all waiting for change, and it all starts with in. When that change comes, all will change also with out.

Ps the change is ongoing ........ nothing stays the same ever.

Onyxnight
When you vote 'no' on a declaration like this, considering the details, any normal person would ask the "WHY" question, and expect an explanation.

There are a lot missing in this declaration,For example no obligation what so ever !
And it is also a we against them !
This is a Illusion they can only work as they do as long as others is supporting the system (witch I am not )

I should not have voted at all, but I can feel the soul intention in this, so I did and gave my Yes.

Namaste

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 18:44

Once again, I wish to share with everyone another PM from one of those brave souls that voted “NO”. I love these people as much as I love all of you that voted “YES”. They are us, and we are ONE. We should not forget that.

This person shall remain anonymous and has granted me permission to share this message. As before, the quoted material is from the sender, and the rest of the commentary is mine. I am sincerely grateful to the sender for sharing these thoughts with Avalon and for allowing me to comment.

=====

All this is meant as constructive critisism. I voted No. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but since those in favour seem to have big plans for this declaration, you have to get it right. I don't claim to know what is right, but I will voice my objections to the declaration. It is filled with negatives. It is against things. Anything you oppose, is strengthened by your opposition.

This is an important characteristic of our brainwashing. We have been conditioned to see negativity as negative. This is very advantageous to the controllers. Like all dictators, they refuse to be criticized and cannot tolerate dissent. By brainwashing the public to see criticism and dissent as undesirable negativity, they can nip this problem in the bud.

Of course I do agree 100% with the sentiment, but I'm not even sure how I feel about the idea, though. What is it meant to serve?

Internal contradictions like this are a clear sign of that brainwashing. It shows up as cognitive dissonance. I want to point out that I am not saying that you are brainwashed and I am not. We are all suffering from this brainwashing because we have been subjected to it all of our lives!

Plus, this whole thing started because the initiator was fed up, angry and frustrated. That is not a good starting point either.

Actually, no. Though there is an element of truth there, that start was primarily for dramatic effect, to grab the audience’s attention. It is an effective writing tool. The anger and frustration are entirely justified, however. Again we see how our brainwashing forces us to criticize our own feelings, even when they are justified.

Then, the obvious. How could anyone vote no? The others will be all over that person, as some comments have already shown. The polling works divisive. "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists".

That’s why voting (polling) should be private.

Again, we are seeing the mind manipulation driving us to condemn negativity. Voting “no” becomes sinful. Polling becomes divisive. Dissent becomes terrorism. Of course, none of this is true.

Since most of the content is so obvious, what is the point of it, really. What does this declaration hope to accomplish? Who is it for?

Wow. The cognitive dissonance really pours out here. It is stated that everything is obvious, yet we ask questions whose answers are also obvious.

Physician's creed? The harm being done to humanity in the name of medicine, by doctors who have sworn this oath is overwhelming. The physician's creed is a fallacy. Plus, it's a negative. I would remove any association with this creed.
I stand by the notion of not doing harm, obviously.

That the Physician’s Creed is not being followed does not invalidate the creed. Again, we see the effects of the brainwashing. The creed contains a negative word, so it can’t be positive. It must be removed. Yet we agree with the notion? That would be more cognitive dissonance, more evidence of the brainwashing we have all been subjected to.

Some might say, it is okay to harm 1 human in order to save 100. That is debatable. Sometimes one doesn't mean to harm another, but the other is harmed anyway. How do you deal with that?

Yes, there are often areas of difficulty, the infamous gray areas. There will be tough choices to make sometimes. How do we deal with that? Will we use that divisive method known as the vote (polling)? Or will we avoid responsibility, pass the buck to Big Brother, and let our leader decide for us?

The golden rule cannot be thus. It is a negative statement. What one person wants or doesn't want done onto him/her, differs from how others feel about it.
It is too close to saying do unto others what you want done onto you and that leads to twisted stuff.

When cognitive dissonance gets severe enough, even the Golden Rule becomes bad. Granted, it is not perfect, but what single rule gets closer to the goal of judgment and justice?

A suicidal person might think he's doing another a favor by killing them and be justified that he's not doing harm. Respect other's free will (and don't do anything to limit it).

Not limiting an individual’s free will can get just as twisted. Do we let criminals do harm just because it is their free will?

The long list of things we don't want. It's incomplete and is all negatives.
Basically the whole thing is in opposition to the current paradigm. I too am opposed to it, but this cannot be the starting point of your new paradigm. It is like creating peace through war. It is like protest songs against music. These negatives should be included somewhere, but in the basic declaration, you have to start things we do want.

I’m afraid of sounding like a broken record here. The claim is that negativity is negative, when there are times when it is exactly what is called for.

I don't see anything about respecting animal and plant life, living harmoniously with nature. Living within our means. Equality? Judging others? etc.

It’s all there in those two little rules, if you think about it. You are asking for an all-inclusive list that spells out every conceivable detail, and yet…

In fact you cannot have any lists in your declaration, for anything not included in the list, falls outside your declaration and can then be taken advantage of.

… the direct contradiction follows, with the claim that no list can be allowed. Once again, the brainwashing shows up as cognitive dissonance.

Then there is a reliance on authority. Who grants these rights on what basis? Are these statements going to have to be enforced?

Natural rights by definition do not require an authority to grant them. They are inalienable. All other authority is derived from the people, and only they have the authority to enforce their authority.

Speaking about rights is old paradigm. It is legalese, a language of law makers/defenders/enforcers. It's full of traps.

My disgust for the legal profession is surely as great as yours, so I understand your distrust. But my disgust is not for law itself so much as it is for the way it is being practiced – without true justice. This is like your criticism of the Physician’s Creed. The creed is sound, the common practice of it is hypocritical.

In the final analysis, all judgment is full of traps, and yet that is our highest calling, to exercise our judgment wisely and with empathy.

That is how I felt when I read it. If I sign this contract, I sign away my freedom. It is like standing up in court when they say 'all rise'. If you stand up, you give the court jurisdiction over you.

How you feel is important. Analyzing why you feel the way you do is very important, too. In this case, it reveals the mind control that has shaped those feelings, and the cognitive dissonance that results from that mind control. We are all being influenced by this deliberate program of mind manipulation! It only varies among us by degree. It is like ignorance. It is best to recognize that we are all ignorant, and the only variation is in the degree of that ignorance.

The only declaration we need should be short and succinct. Something like:

We are human beings who respect others and all other life forms.
We are independent and interconnected. We will take care of ourselves, each other, the planet, and all that inhabit it.
We will only harm or kill when no other means are available to sustain a harmonious way of life.

I would gladly make such a statement if it were true! And if it were true, there would be no need to make it! It is clear that we are not currently respecting other humans or other life forms. We are dependent on a corrupt system that has us destroying our planet and ourselves. We harm and kill with complete recklessness and justify it with rationalizations rooted in brainwashing. That is what we are here to fix. That is why we must unite and organize. That is the one and only purpose of the Declaration.

And even simple statements like these are debatable and can be taken for a ride. What about the moon for instance, that is not on the earth and therefore falls outside the declaration.

The Declaration is deliberately open-ended and all-encompassing. It is meant to be debated! The two rules apply not only to Earth, but to the Moon, the planets, and to the entire universe. “Do no harm” excludes no one and nothing. It only requires understanding what harm is, and that is and will always be the challenge of those characteristics that gives us our inestimable value – judgment, empathy, and love.

There are always going to be bad apples. It just takes 1 to spoil the whole bunch. How do you deal with that?

With wise and empathetic judgment founded in love.

So basically, I am against this idea of a declaration of whatever. It is like a constitution and see where that got us.

Again, you condemn the idea (of a constitution) because its current practice is completely corrupt. The fault lies not in the idea, but in the practitioners. Organized sociopaths have undermined the practices laid out in the Constitution and rendered that document nonfunctional. But the idea is still valid and workable. Things simply need to be rebalanced.

Any type of document like this holds people to it. It becomes an authority.
What we need to do is just step away from the whole paradigm and start a new one, rather than stating that we are.

We are not simply stating what we are. We are stating that humanity itself is in the state of cognitive dissonance, and this must be corrected. To do so, humanity is uniting and organizing. Although not stated, all of this is essentially the result of intensive brainwashing by a sociopathic minority seeking to control the majority and live off of that majority like a bunch of greedy parasites. I say, with as much negativity as I can possible muster, NO! No, I do not agree! No, I do not consent! And no, I am not alone!

Maria Stade

20th March 2011, 19:23

Once again, I wish to share with everyone another PM from one of those brave souls that voted “NO”. I love these people as much as I love all of you that voted “YES”. They are us, and we are ONE. We should not forget that.

...

We are not simply stating what we are. We are stating that humanity itself is in the state of cognitive dissonance, and this must be corrected. To do so, humanity is uniting and organizing. Although not stated, all of this is essentially the result of intensive brainwashing by a sociopathic minority seeking to control the majority and live off of that majority like a bunch of greedy parasites. I say, with as much negativity as I can possible muster, NO! No, I do not agree! No, I do not consent! And no, I am not alone!

Ciccodoodoo...You have just shown us how You work, and also this is a very manipulative behavior, have the phsycopats learned you or are you a natural !
You are very programed maybe worse than rest.

Im done in this thread !

Maria

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 19:32

There are a number of surprises in this poll, and they have little to do with the Declaration itself.

One, of course, is the number of people voting “No”. If I were to post up a Yes/No poll with the question “I have the right to breathe”, there would surely be “No” votes. It really is quite astounding.

Even more puzzling is that many people would feel like they shouldn’t vote! Somehow, the very act of expressing a choice has been demonized! This suits the controllers of our world quite nicely, because they do not want us to be making any choices other than the ones they allow us to make. Freedom is about making choices, and the controllers are about taking away our freedom.

I don’t know about you, but I am learning a lot from this exercise.

skippy

20th March 2011, 19:41

We shouldn't define it.
If we define it, we name it.
If we name it, we limit it.
If we limit it, we lose it.
It's unlimited.

The declaration is deliberately open-ended it will always be open-ended. I agree that we should not try to limit things, but, in terms of limitations, it cannot get much worse, what do you think?

Regarding the argument that the declaration is just a new form of authoritarian control, I'm not sure if I agree. In the new paradigm we don't want prisons, police, money, hierarchy, centralized power, etc. If this is the case, and if we are building here just another new ideology, I'll be the first to withdraw my support to this initiative.

jorr lundstrom

20th March 2011, 19:48

OnyxKnight

20th March 2011, 19:50

I wish to see those who voted "No" offered an alternative.

Like the latest disagreeable person said, constructive criticism. I'm personally fine with it, such a thing is needed everywhere. But every once in a while, along with a critique, make sure some of you have something "better" to offer on the plate, okay? Everyone can play a critic.

Chico presented something very interesting, at the very least. Maybe it needs some modification, maybe not. He started an idea. And we all know how ideas can be contagious. They also evolve. Maybe that's what this idea needs. A bit more time to evolve into something more complex, more "alive".

buckminster fuller

20th March 2011, 20:07

Out of 2132 members, only 56 have participated in the poll.

I am proud of those who have refused to be a part of this

utter nonsense. And Im chocked over those who have walked

into this childish ego-trap. The whole universe is watching and

this is the level of understanding that reigns here.:attention:

Every single being is a part of this universe. We're still living in a 3d environment. Still the same basic needs for everyone. Some people are getting those needs fulfilled, some other not. Where's the ego-trap and the childishness in the will to see the state of the world change? What is so wrong with the desire to create something else? Would you care to explain what a "level of understanding" is..? Is it being measured against your own ? What is the scale ? Do you have answers other than prayers to the 12000 kids that die from hunger every day ? What is the plan ? Live in the forest and eat what can be found there ? Of course some individuals can sustain themselves, but what about large communities ? Where is the care ?

Arpheus

20th March 2011, 20:53

Wot 2 peopled voted no and didnt even bother posting something LOL,way to go!Not a nice way to start if you ask me ouch!

Arpheus, we would love to know what makes you voted against this declaration?
I didnt vote against it what are you talking about?I voted yes and then posted a comment why 2 people voted no,so i dunno what you are talking about,please dont go pointing fingers before knowing the facts ok thanks?

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 20:57

Out of 2132 members, only 56 have participated in the poll.

I am proud of those who have refused to be a part of this

utter nonsense. And Im chocked over those who have walked

into this childish ego-trap. The whole universe is watching and

this is the level of understanding that reigns here.:attention:

You are proud of those that can’t even express an opinion concerning a clearly stated need to unite and organize? I can’t say that I find that attitude something to be proud of. And this is utter nonsense, a childish ego-trap? If you ask me, surmounting our individual egos to unite as a species for the betterment of all species is definitely not utter nonsense nor a childish ego-trap. Sorry, but I don’t see it. Perhaps you can explain.

skippy

20th March 2011, 21:12

I didnt vote against it what are you talking about?I voted yes and then posted a comment why 2 people voted no,so i dunno what you are talking about,please dont go pointing fingers before knowing the facts ok thanks?

I'm sorry Arpheus, for the misinterpretation, please accept my apologies.

Skippy

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 21:14

Ciccodoodoo...You have just shown us how You work, and also this is a very manipulative behavior, have the phsycopats learned you or are you a natural !
You are very programed maybe worse than rest.

Im done in this thread !

I am a transparent, manipulative psychopath, according to Maria. I agree that I am doing everything that I can to be transparent. If, as a result of baring my soul, I am judged to be a psychopath (how ironic), so be it. That judgment is one that each of you will make. I hope it is made with wisdom, empathy, and love.

I would like to remind everyone that this thread is not about me, or any other individual. It is about us. Attack the ideas, not the person. We have a lot to learn about being a united cooperative. It wouldn't hurt to learn some of it early, right here in this thread.

Ahkenaten

20th March 2011, 22:25

Chicodoodoo - While the principles expressed are lofty and laudable my issues with this kind of a manifesto are:

1.) ANY RIGHT ASSERTED CONFERS OBLIGATIONS UPON OTHERS

2.) Laying something out in this manner is jumping into back the historic dialectic, i.e. der sturm und der strang of the competing opposites that together are complimentary and serve to spin the wheel of HIStory....perpetuating and prolonging even with good intentions, IMO, our problems

3.) THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY (a way around this dialectical dilemma, for example, could be asserting statements of principle as COMMON HUMAN OBLIGATIONS, for example instead of 'rights' to clean air and water, "In order to insure that all living things have a clean environment and food and water, WE HUMANS OBLIGATE OURSELVES TO ADOPTING SIMPLE LIFESTYLES THAT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING (list of best practices.)" In this way, instead of stating a right in an open-ended way that implicitly, if not explicitly confers obligations on others - you take the bull by the horns and combine an affirmative statement about WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN with concrete examples of "best practices" used to achieve a set of objectives. This is not merely semantics.)

Flash

20th March 2011, 22:54

Please, keep posting your comments, Akhenaten thank you, Maria, thank you. They are all useful to make it what it should be. I saw the intention of Chicodoodoo from the start and I kow they are good, even if they may come akward for some sometimes. So thanks Maria for showing this in an undeniable way.

I know this declaration of... could be extraordinary. Keep posting your comments and ideas please.

(I did not write much on the declaration to start with, but I kept an eye all along, thinking I will dive when the time comes. That is how I saw intentions beneath.).

Chicodoodoo

20th March 2011, 23:36

Here is a follow-up explanation from the first person to share his reasons for voting "No". He was concerned that his explanations were not being understood by some on this thread. I am posting this with his permission and without any comment from me.

=====

Good morning... I have followed the replies in your 'poll thread'. I am surprised how many people have no understanding as to why I stated 'no'; example, people 'implying' I do not know what I am talking about - when the fact is, [humbly said] I do know...

Perhaps my position as to why I said 'no' was not made clear enough;... I offer my knowledge and experience, based... (on) application 'out in the field'.

I reflect on our PM exchanges...

"...times, I have been in the company of 'those' whom we speak of.

...I know I really have someone's attention. If you do the sovereignty thing right, you will 'confront' them - if you don't then, yes, there is no threat - at the same time no true sovereignty is gained.

I totally understand your rationale on trying to make it as painless as possible - I say, it is like going to do gardening but not wanting to get your hands dirty. If you don't separate from the state then nothing is gained, sorry to say, it becomes only a 'feel good'.

I have learned I am doing what I am doing for me, as no one else is willing to take the proper steps - however, I know I will not be the one benefiting...

I don't play by 'their' rules at all - in fact I do the opposite, however I use my knowledge to know 'them'.

...who have been arrested for matters - I told them what I would do (not legal advice) which did not play by the system's rules - they were successful.

The way to become truly sovereign is by the 'rules' of the common person - this is why I have said in threads 'to keep it simple', I know it can be done."

All the materials needed, such as a 'Declaration of Independence', photo ID card and so forth have been created - and distributed 'globally' for safekeeping. This material will be released when the time is right - either by...

Feel free to share this PM (anonymously) in the 'poll thread' to be fair to my position, again if you wish. ...there is potential for something to be reality with what you are doing and I only wish to see it become successful.

To quote the late Aaron Russo, 'I have a plan'; unfortunately he passed as he was about to share it with others. His biggest challenge was getting many people to listen to 'reason' and to unit many - if the people had cooperated sooner, then his plan may have been in place today and he would still be here.

jorr lundstrom

21st March 2011, 00:09

I understand that you dont understand wot Im saying Buckminster Fuller and Chicodoodoo.

This declaration is an ego-game played at a political level, a common practise of TPTA.

Those actions on an ego-level have never and will never leed to unity. Unity is a phenomenon

belonging to cosciousness. One has to step out of ones ego to reach unity. Being the

change, takes that one steps out of the the known and enters the unknown. But then one

has to walk the talk and its much more cozy just to talk about it.

Nobody has anything against a glorious future but who is willing to do wot it takes. It is

much easier to sign a declaration about all rights one wish to have and imagine that

one has done something great. If you have to handle your ideas about your future on

that level and in that side of your brains, I promise I wont disturb you. How you

choose to do is up to you, of course. I can choose other threads participate in

on PA. Love and carrots on me

Chicodoodoo

21st March 2011, 00:14

my issues with this kind of a manifesto are:

1.) ANY RIGHT ASSERTED CONFERS OBLIGATIONS UPON OTHERS

I could be wrong, but I really see the next step in the evolution of humanity as being our recognition of the fact that we do indeed have obligations towards others. In fact, we have obligations towards the entire planet that sustains us. Our current problem is that we hardly take responsibility for anything, including our own kind. With an attitude like that, it is no wonder that a tiny minority of sociopaths can jerk us all around like rag dolls for centuries without end. Sociopaths are, after all, the absolute masters of irresponsibility.

2.) Laying something out in this manner is jumping into back the historic dialectic, i.e. der sturm und der strang of the competing opposites that together are complimentary and serve to spin the wheel of HIStory....perpetuating and prolonging even with good intentions, IMO, our problems

I'm not positively sure what you are trying to say here, but the fact that competing opposites is such an enduring theme throughout history tells me that this is probably a real phenomenon that has to be dealt with. I am also convinced that people have many, many misconceptions about this concept that thoroughly distorts their thinking, to disastrous effect, I might add. But that is another whole debate.

3.) THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY (a way around this dialectical dilemma, for example, could be asserting statements of principle as COMMON HUMAN OBLIGATIONS, for example instead of 'rights' to clean air and water, "In order to insure that all living things have a clean environment and food and water, WE HUMANS OBLIGATE OURSELVES TO ADOPTING SIMPLE LIFESTYLES THAT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING (list of best practices.)" In this way, instead of stating a right in an open-ended way that implicitly, if not explicitly confers obligations on others - you take the bull by the horns and combine an affirmative statement about WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN with concrete examples of "best practices" used to achieve a set of objectives. This is not merely semantics.)

The problem there is that "best practices" are dependent on a multitude of variables that cannot be known in advance. That's why those decisions need to be dynamic and be decided by those that will be affected, meaning the decisions must be made in real-time by a united and organized people. Besides that, you just tripped over your point #1 by obligating everyone to something, and this time to something very specific (your list of "best practices").

Maria Stade

21st March 2011, 00:14

Once again, I wish to share with everyone another PM from one of those brave souls that voted “NO”. I love these people as much as I love all of you that voted “YES”. They are us, and we are ONE. We should not forget that.

...

We are not simply stating what we are. We are stating that humanity itself is in the state of cognitive dissonance, and this must be corrected. To do so, humanity is uniting and organizing. Although not stated, all of this is essentially the result of intensive brainwashing by a sociopathic minority seeking to control the majority and live off of that majority like a bunch of greedy parasites. I say, with as much negativity as I can possible muster, NO! No, I do not agree! No, I do not consent! And no, I am not alone!

Ciccodoodoo...You have just shown us how You work, and also this is a very manipulative behavior, have the phsycopats learned you or are you a natural !
You are very programed maybe worse than rest.

Im done in this thread !

Maria

Ah and then you manipulated Paul to take away what I did refer to !

It was your way to treat another persons answer !
So to all, I did refer to the quotes and Chiccodoodoos comments on # 44.

Yes we are all learning !

Love to all :luv:

Chicodoodoo

21st March 2011, 00:42

Ah and then you manipulated Paul to take away what I did refer to !

It was your way to treat another persons answer !
So to all, I did refer to the quotes and Chiccodoodoos comments on # 44.

Yes we are all learning !

Love to all :luv:

I have had no contact with any of the moderators and I had nothing to do with your post being removed. This is the first I have heard about it. My preference would be for your posts to stay, as I think they have value, though I wish you could have avoided quoting that entire long post of mine. Just quoting my name with the reference icon and a couple of sentences would have been sufficient.

SKAWF

21st March 2011, 01:01

for whats its worth, these laws i have no problem adhering to.
they are principles. like the laws of physics.
they allow for all experiences. good or bad.
a bit like saying...
'these are governing principles. this is the way the universe works.
you are free to do whatever you like, but all things fall under the umbrella of these principles'

The Law of Attraction - whatever you think or feel, you will attract into your experience. (your experience will mirror your intentions)
The Law of Focused Intention (also called The Law of Deliberate Creation) - with focused intention you can bring idea's into the realm of physical existance.
The Law of Allowance - every being is on a path tailored to its on experience. good or bad, you must allow them to have that experience free from interference.
The Law of Balance - at the end of a process, or an existance, all things return to a point of balance. its the default state of existance. all things come from that.

these laws are unintrusive. they encompass and allow for everything.
they were written by beings who have more wisdom than me.
and i know that if i act in accordance with them,
i harmonise with a mass of beings all throughout the universe.
to me, its way beyond the paradigm of 'man'.
it also raises me out of the 'this world' mentality and into something far greater. IMO.

steve

Maria Stade

21st March 2011, 01:04

Chiccodoodoo
I have had no contact with any of the moderators and I had nothing to do with your post being removed. This is the first I have heard about it. My preference would be for your posts to stay, as I think they have value, though I wish you could have avoided quoting that entire long post of mine. Just quoting my name with the reference icon and a couple of sentences would have been sufficient.

Thank you for clearing that ! :hug:

I am learning and I wish you a good night ! :sleep:

Maria

Ahkenaten

21st March 2011, 01:16

Hi Chicodoodoo - Sorry for inclusion of lengthy quotes etc. which I have now edited out...thanks first for tackling this thorny and important subject of HOW TO LIVE HERE ON EARTH, and secondly for specifically an courteously responding to my comments. I have been thinking of a way to simplify what I am trying to get at so as not to get bogged down in semantics.........I will use an example. Years ago a very prominent environmentalist in the US said that his children "had a right to being able to go fishing" etc. meaning that they had a right to engaging with natural resources and wildlife I presume. I found that to be very disturbing on a number of levels, in fact it seemed somewhat elitist in the old sense of aristocrats being entitled to hunt and fish in the woods while others could be shot or arrested for it, i.e. the same-old 2-tiered system of justice only these days under "environmentalism" but I digress. After thinking it over for awhile I came up with another statement that I thought worked better.............."Humans have no environmental (and I would say now, or other) 'rights' ONLY divine obligations towards one another and the earth that sustains us."

That, for me about covers it, does away with any sense of being special in any way, and transforms sense of entitlement or rights into DIVINE SPIRITUAL OBLIGATIONS ON MANY LEVELS OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. Any specific priorities or projects would then flow naturally out of that statement.

I hope this clarifies my thinking on this very important issue.

ThePythonicCow

21st March 2011, 01:35

Ah and then you manipulated Paul to take away what I did refer to !

It was your way to treat another persons answer !
So to all, I did refer to the quotes and Chiccodoodoos comments on # 44.

Yes we are all learning !

Love to all :luv:

Oh good grief. Chicodoodoo did not manipulate my choice of what to remove from a long quote (at least not to my awareness.)

I skimmed over what you quoted of Chicodoodoo in your above post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16690-United-People-Declaration-poll&p=180026&viewfull=1#post180026), probably skimmed too quickly, and removed what I thought was the unrelated portion of the quoted material.

No conspiracy here that I can see - just an admin/mod reading too quickly, trying to trim down a two page quote to what he surmised was the few lines to which you were actually responding.

P.S. -- For those times (perhaps this was one of them?) when responding to the gestalt of an entire long post, I recommend quoting just a few lines of the prior post, to provide a link and a quick reminder. Quoting long posts takes up a lot of screen space which every reader has to scroll past to get to what might be just a few lines of response.

Ahkenaten

21st March 2011, 01:47

oops, sorry. I will edit my post #64 now - did not mean to be inconsiderate.......

Chicodoodoo

21st March 2011, 01:58

Ahkenaten

21st March 2011, 02:20

Thanks first for tackling this thorny and important subject of HOW TO LIVE HERE ON EARTH.

I cannot tell any of us how to live here on Earth. In fact, that's the point of the Declaration, not to tell us how to live here on our planet, but to get us united and organized so that WE can decide that for ourselves! So far, WE have not been deciding that! How could we when we are not united or organized? Those decisions are being made for us by organized sociopaths that in no way represent our best interests. Only WE can decide our best interests. The only way that will ever happen is if WE do what the sociopaths have done, UNITE AND ORGANIZE.

Other than that, I'm mostly with you on the rest of your example, although I think we're bound to get tripped up in the semantics of "divine spiritual rights". I'll let that dog lie for now.

I know you are not trying to tell people how to live on earth but your thread (declaration) IS about that subject, isn't it?
I only used the term "divine" to elevate the discussion above the political.....really your subject does touch on all levels of our existence and our being but it is kind of like, "take what you want" from my thoughts "and leave the rest" I only wanted to contribute not detract from the discussion!! :o

Chicodoodoo

21st March 2011, 02:26

I know you are not trying to tell people how to live on earth but your thread (declaration) IS about that subject, isn't it?

Not as far as I can tell. It's about trying to get people to agree to unite and organize so that the people can make the decisions.

I only wanted to contribute not detract from the discussion!! :o

You are contributing. Thank you.

Icecold

21st March 2011, 02:42

OK:

Maria - I have my own kingdom waiting for me when this body withers away (perceive this as whatever you like). I'm just trying to support something nice here, that I don't get it from a politician trying to sell me snake oil when it comes to changes, okay? I'm tired of waiting and chanting around for people "to create a common list of goals for which we would go against teh current system, and unite", when I see the zygote of this being created on Avalon. When you vote 'no' on a declaration like this, considering the details, any normal person would ask the "WHY" question, and expect an explanation.

Onyx, you did get it from a politician. Chicodoodoo not only consistently plays this role of a politician...trying to sell systems of rules and regulations, but he has a view about 'otherness' which is extremely dangerous. Instead of identifying institutions, organisations and systems as flawed, CHico has identified an 'otherness' in people....humans...he calls them sociopaths...following the Laura Knight line. While others are intent on dismantling systems and apparatus of enslavement, Chico will be targetting the people on his hitlist for extermination.

I say no to all that.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Buck:

I think the intent behind the declaration is not to change the system, but to help promote a new paradigm for us to express ourselves as free creative beings. The idea is to unite behind clear, simple concepts. This unity is the only possible tool that we have today to get rid of the old system. The declaration is not a constitution, it shouldn't close any doors, as what comes next is the birth of a new society. It is not "the project"

This unity is the only possible tool that we have today to get rid of the old system.

I don't agree. It a 'system' of control...rules...and laws. It will lead to power struggles, elitism, authoritarian control.

Unity of consciousness is a different kettle of fish. That I support.

Not unity behind a set of rules and regulations.

You're still talking about the old paradigm. Doesn't apply here. No power struggle in a system with no money.

This is the old paradigm. lol

If you can't see it then you need to do more work removing elite programming.

Chicodoodoo

21st March 2011, 02:48

CHico has identified an 'otherness' in people....humans...he calls them sociopaths...following the Laura Knight line. While others are intent on dismantling systems and apparatus of enslavement, Chico will be targetting the people on his hitlist for extermination.

I say no to all that.

Didn't we already have this conversation in the thread "Are sociopaths human?"

I'll repeat again, sociopaths are not on my hitlist, nor do they need to be exterminated. The flat, holographic model that the Declaration is leading up to allows everyone to participate, even the sociopaths. The difference is that sociopaths will only be able to influence and control things in proportion to their numbers (estimated at 2% of the population). Currently, their influence and control is completely dominant and way out of proportion to their numbers.

Do you get it yet, Icecold?

Merkaba360

21st March 2011, 05:08

Hmm.

I think the change comes from consciousness first.

Can we really change with just the new thoughts expressed on paper and spread. Perhaps it will happen that way, but then I doubt this is as large a change as I hope.

If our consciousness on the inside shifts enough for enough people, the perception of the masses will change and we won't just talk about unity, but see it as our ACTUAL perception of what is percieved physically and on all levels.

Do we see that we are one before we act on it, or do we act on it and thru that acting love we will start to see it?

The doers want to just take action and make things happen, often before consciousness has shifted enough. I don't really know.

I have had moments of perceiving the interconnectedness of all things and the feelings of love to serve other because I saw it was not separate from myself. Seems so impossible to get enough humans to reach that consciousness. I just don't know if this is going to be one incredible leap we make that we will conjure once annihilation is at hand. Or a lot of small steps.

I respect your desire to take action.

So many people talk about "We are all one." Yet for many its just a inner knowing. How many have witnessed it? How many sustain that consciousness all the time and have permanently made that perceptual shift.

So much has changed in our history with our beliefs and how we treat each other. But how long has it been since humanity has made a shift in perceiving actual "physical reality." I'm talking about removing the perceptual filters and seeing the energetic reality, not this lie of stagnant dead reality. The vibrant flowing energetic world of fresh constant renewal. If the threat of species extinction can't cause an incredible leap like this , what can? We might all be in for a real shock, on where this is all going.

I have only met meditators and entheogen users who clearly understand this or those that had some sort of stress to give them a glimpse.

When I talk about this sort of thing with a guy I know, he acts like i'm talking about some crazy far out dimension way above reality. Its quite hilarious. No, it is all in front of us and its really the same thing but seeing it more for what it truly is.

I know we all have the capacity to empower ourselves and make change. But maybe this huge of one needs someone much more aware than us? who knows.

Chicodoodoo

21st March 2011, 06:11

I think the change comes from consciousness first.

Does it take a change in consciousness for humanity to finally unite and organize, or by uniting and organizing, does humanity change its consciousness?

I would suggest that these are two extremes of an over-simplified model of human behavior. The truth lies somewhere in between and is probably much more complicated than this simple model can even handle. Yet I think you will find that most people cannot move beyond simple models.

Almost without fail, I think we ask the wrong questions. We spend endless time debating which came first, the chicken or the egg, because we cannot fathom the true complexity that is the reality of our world.

I acknowledge that I am an ignorant fool. But at least I'm aware of it.

skippy

21st March 2011, 07:37

I acknowledge that I am an ignorant fool. But at least I'm aware of it. Come on Chico, you know better than that... Thank you for taking the time and patience to respond to all comments and questions.

Skippy.

buckminster fuller

21st March 2011, 07:38

FutureLeFunk

21st March 2011, 08:39

Logic tells me that written words should be there to help us learn, anything else is pure fiction. Nothing wrong with a good book...

My heart tells me that we need to write words of hope.

My creative side tells me to go around spraying "Fictitious Hope" everywhere :secret:

So I guess that's neither a yes or no

Chuck

21st March 2011, 09:17

Chicodoodoo, I love your intent, I love your energy.

I submit the following:

In a dualist, polarized world is equality possible? Is liberty possible? Fairness? Privacy? Indeed, is peace possible?

How should these be measured?

It is similar to George Orwell’s Animal Farm. It starts with the best of intentions, “All animals are equal”. Without an evolved consciousness for every individual, how long does it take for it to deteriorate to “Some animals are more equal than others”

I dare take the unpopular position and say … equality, liberty, fairness, privacy, peace are NOT possible. We strive to get close to it and for that our spirit rejoices and our characters are defined by our efforts to do so. But we cannot and will not ever achieve it on this plane.

Attempts to make it lawful will result in the opposite of your intent.

One can argue that it is because of the existence of these adversities that compel us to seek atonement in spirit. They become the means for our baptism to a greater consciousness. It is there, beyond the words, in that lofty state that those ideals are achieved.

Beat this body and fool, deceive, trick, coerce me all you want. These only serve to sharpen my mind and strengthen my resolve to find comfort in spirit.

I think the individual way, of evolving our own consciousness is the way… at least for me.

… I reserve the right to change my mind!

ohh and Chicodoodoo, I stand beside you in consciousness, and in deed if necessary, to declare your and my sovereignty on this planet.

Deep bow to you sir.

buckminster fuller

21st March 2011, 09:36

We won't part with the individualist view of things if we don't get on the road and make things happen. Seeing this world we live in as merely a passage to something hopefully better does provide the controllers with the material they need to keep us enslaved to misconceptions. See the huge machinery of control that still prevails today ? That keep people blinded and attached to the old paradigm.? That keep them in fear.? Why is that, if not because the controllers are afraid that the people wake up and take back their natural freedom. When I see comments that action is bound to failure, I really see the result of the propaganda that we've been fed with. When I see comments explaining us that the real freedom is inside and that the rest is illusion, I agree on a personal level, but I see it as a really selfish view of things if applied to a broader context than that of the individual. This is egotistic and counter-creative. Picture a scale, that is the moral state of this world. In one basket, intentions.. in the other one, realisations... Which side do you feel in your heart should be promoted for the good of all..?

Chuck

21st March 2011, 09:54

buckminster fuller

21st March 2011, 10:18

Hello buckminster fuller,

Picture a scale, that is the moral state of this world. In one basket, intentions.. in the other one, realisations... Which side do you feel in your heart should be promoted for the good of all..?

mmm... I suppose if I really believed that those ideals could be achieved and realized on this planet, I would have already spent my last ounce of energy attempting to make it so. I suspect however, that my attempts to substitute my truths, no matter how more lofty I consider them to be, would still be imposing a form of tyranny. I will become that which I fought to abolish.

I suspect that things are not that simple. I understand your logic. I see no ideals but pragmatism in the declaration as it is. "ideals", "utopia" are dirty words in the current scheme of things, yet it is really a form of utopia that we are suffering from. There are material consequences, followed by human suffering. Is it really manageable in your view to remain detached from all the "bad stuff" happening on the planet? You really think we have no grasp unto our material reality..? Well I think quite the opposite..

It is not about rules and regulations. It is about applied creativity.

Hawkwind

21st March 2011, 14:10

So Hawkwind, what would be your views, if you were to do it?

Okay, here's MY declaration:

Preamble (I don't have time right now to do this properly, but this is close)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq-1bxJc7F0

Grace guide us and protect us.
Open our hearts to your song.
Let your love fill us and shine through us.
Let every hurt be healed and every fear subside.
May the veil be lifted, that we see the path
back to you, beloved.
Let peace return to Earth
and our voices raise together-
One Heart, One Love, once more.
_____________________________

That's MY declaration, affirmation, hope, wish and prayer. What is YOURS? It seems to me that the heart of "old paradigm" is left brain, analytical, ego centric and aggressive. "I'm mad as hell" is where the discussion that led to the declaration being polled began. THAT is "old paradigm". Anger unless moderated by love and transformed into determination is a force of destruction. It isn't a good foundation for building something new, especially if the desired end result is harmony. The current social system is non-sustainable. It's a dinosaur that will collapse under it's own weight. Our energy is better spent building the world we want than fighting against the existing social structure. In fact, I'd suggest putting energy into helping the existing system go quietly in it's sleep would be a good deal wiser than trying to beat it to death. Working a large, powerful, frightened wounded animal into a panic does not seem to me as constructive as helping it pass peacefully. Be the change you want to see in the world.

Namaste

OnyxKnight

21st March 2011, 14:27

Onyx, you did get it from a politician. Chicodoodoo not only consistently plays this role of a politician...trying to sell systems of rules and regulations, but he has a view about 'otherness' which is extremely dangerous. Instead of identifying institutions, organisations and systems as flawed, CHico has identified an 'otherness' in people....humans...he calls them sociopaths...following the Laura Knight line. While others are intent on dismantling systems and apparatus of enslavement, Chico will be targetting the people on his hitlist for extermination.

I say no to all that.

I think I'm slowly starting to understand why there are 'no's here.

I do, stand on my view though, that we need ... something like this declaration in existence.

Maybe you could suggest the basic idea Icecold?

What are the points in this declaration that you disagree with?

Chicodoodoo

21st March 2011, 18:04

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Hawkwind, I believe I have already explained to you that the “mad as hell” opening was deliberately chosen to get people’s attention. People are, after all, typically feeling anger when they have been mistreated, and the current system is definitely mistreating people.

The basic sentiment behind the Declaration is not anger, and I am puzzled why you continue to focus your criticism on this false presumption. I challenge you to find anger in the Declaration. The basic sentiment within it is unity. There are many forces that will nudge people towards this unity, including liberty, justice, peace, comfort, love, and yes, even anger. What matters is not the driving force, but the destination.

I have a great admiration for the societal structure of the tribal peoples that Europeans wrongly decimated on the North American continent. I feel a tremendous loss whenever I think about it. You might be surprised to learn that their spirit is one of the driving forces behind my desire to correct the unbalanced nature of our world.

The Declaration is the first step in taking us to a flat, holographic model very similar to that of the Native Americans. That model requires what Native Americans had in their hearts – unity. They were one with their fellow brothers and sisters, they were one with the animals they lived with, and they were one with the planet. That is what we have to get back to.

We are on the same path. Your declaration is my declaration. We should not be butting heads, but joining forces.

Ahkenaten

21st March 2011, 20:57

I think we need something more on the purely energetic level to affect real lasting and positive change........somehow I am skeptical about the traditional grass-roots political organizing stuff, it hasn't worked so far and at its best has only gotten us the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution. They were not at all what some people think they were. I prefer to envision massive social change as something like a gigantic flock of birds in the air suddenly, instantly changing direction of one mind, one heart. We do not need more of the same old stuff. Though I appreciate the stimulation and thoughts your thread provides - I do not think this is the way.

jorr lundstrom

21st March 2011, 21:54

Ahkenaten, You are a star. A bright one. Thank you.:tea:

Hawkwind

21st March 2011, 22:06

Hawkwind, I believe I have already explained to you that the “mad as hell” opening was deliberately chosen to get people’s attention.

...I challenge you to find anger in the Declaration.

...We should not be butting heads, but joining forces.

For starts, I'm not butting heads with you. I may be challenging you to shift your perspective and even playing devil's advocate on occasion, but if I didn't think there was value in what you're attempting or that we weren't working together toward common goals I wouldn't be wasting my time. As I said before, whether or not it's clear to you, I'm helping you as best I can.

Yes, you've explained that the "mad as hell" was just for dramatic effect. What's next? Commandeering a broadcast studio as in "V" or shall we take the Tyler Durden approach and start mixing up nitro in a bath tub? If our goal is to help the planet and humanity heal, then anger is not the best frame of mind to start from. Period. Ghandi said- "The means you employ determine the quality of the ends you achieve." I'm not in complete agreement with everything the man said and did, but that statement is pretty spot on, IMHO.

The declaration as it stands oozes anger, indignation and negativity. It is essentially a call to arms and an invitation to join a fight. It's a laundry list first of things that we have rights to (implying that these rights are being violated) and then of things that are wrong with the world. Our thoughts create the world. If we focus our attention on what we don't have or what is wrong, we create more of the same. The universe is ultimately a single consciousness. We are individuated fragments and reflections of that consciousness. The beast and the lamb both reside inside you. Whichever one you give your attention to grows.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn111/Mjr_gamer/TwoWolves-1.jpg

Ahkenaten

21st March 2011, 22:17

Hawkwind the problem with the approach as it stands, IMO, is that it is framed in terms of "rights" which in turn confers obligations on others (which the others no doubt will STRENUOUSLY object to) thereby enforcing and perpetuating the endless revolving of the WHEEL OF HISTORY OR DHARMA.... i.e.'revolution' inherently means reactionary, they don't call these things "REvolutions" for nothing, the very language reveals the nature of this activity - i.e. REVOLVE, turn around again!!) ...there has to be another way.

Hawkwind

21st March 2011, 22:37

...there has to be another way.

I'm not what most Christians would call a Christian, but Jesus did have some pretty good advice. "Seek thee first the kingdom of heaven, which is inside you. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself." Everything else follows naturally from there.

Maria Stade

21st March 2011, 22:40

http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy77/Vitabuffeln/64_bethechange.jpg

Maria Stade

21st March 2011, 22:54

http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy77/Vitabuffeln/Namaste.jpg

Chicodoodoo

22nd March 2011, 00:07

I prefer to envision massive social change as something like a gigantic flock of birds in the air suddenly, instantly changing direction of one mind, one heart.

That's exactly what I'm after, but first, we have to be a gigantic flock. By uniting and organizing, we become the flock. That is the first step.

Ahkenaten

22nd March 2011, 00:13

well (and I am only half joking so please don't take this as a mark of disrespect) could we think of some other way of galvanizing the "flock of starlings"...............some kind of GIGANTIC FLASHDANCE or something........something to "align the electrons" so to speak? Honestly if I were in government, for example, and someone handed me a manifesto, bill of rights or a BILL OF PARTICULARS for that matter at this point, I would rip it up, have them arrested and put them, their families and pals on a watch list. I am not saying because these kinds of ventures function as honey pots they should be avoided if they are the right thing to do tactically and morally...................because if they are, they should be done, regardless. I just am not convinced that this is the best way................

we need something, speaking metaphorically, of course, that is "explosive"......

Chicodoodoo

22nd March 2011, 00:20

Zook

22nd March 2011, 00:29

Ahkenaten

22nd March 2011, 00:35

ZOOK YES YES we must transform on the energetic level and then, as a spontaneous act of nature, we will act beautifully, as ONE. (oops sorry for effusing):tape:

Icecold

22nd March 2011, 01:55

This is the old paradigm. lol

If you can't see it then you need to do more work removing elite programming.

Wot can I say... To each his own ?

Do you really want to insult people's intelligence? If you can't see that a paradigm shift will not be an act of god but of humanity, and if you prefer to live your life in a selfish way, well that's good enough for me.
Unity of consciousness requires that people educate and grow their own quality of perception. This will NOT happen in this paradigm. The controllers WILL NOT let that happen. Thinking otherwise makes you a martyr puppet in their hands.

How can you oppose unity of consciousness and social cohesion ? Forget rules and regulation and your old fears, have faith in us humans, and don't jeopardize our future by thinking that no action can be taken to alleviate suffering and promote positive changes ON A SOCIAL LEVEL. That is if you care for the rest of the world.

You are rambling and have lost the plot.

Forget rules and regulation and your old fears

Exactly, but you want to keep this in place.......? That is not only hypocritical, but is proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

Hawkwind

22nd March 2011, 02:01

The declaration as it stands oozes anger, indignation and negativity. It is essentially a call to arms and an invitation to join a fight. It's a laundry list first of things that we have rights to (implying that these rights are being violated) and then of things that are wrong with the world.

Then I have failed miserably. I thought I could communicate clearly the desire to serve the common good by promoting unity and organization. Please present a better option so that I may retire in peace.

Our thoughts create the world.

Obviously not. I was born into this mess, and my thoughts are unable to turn it around, as we are obviously witnessing.

The beast and the lamb both reside inside you. Whichever one you give your attention to grows.

You have the floor. Make your presentation.

I'm already in bed and my typing will wake my wife, so I'll have to keep this short for now. No, my friend, you most definitely haven't failed in any respect. You've started a ball rolling and it's gaining momentum, just probably not in the exact manner or direction you may have anticipated. Trust that it will continue to do so. As the Desiderata says- whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. You have communicated your desire to serve the common good. You have a good heart. It just seems that you're thoughts are coming more from your head than your heart. The flock of birds that you want to see won't follow any written instructions on how to fly and when to turn. They'll be connected to each other heart to heart and each follow where that leads. Also, in terms of instituting social change, it isn't necessary to form one large group. There already are thousands of groups working to make the world a better place, ala the Blessed Unrest video that Bill Ryan posted. It's not necessary that everyone in every group gets behind one idea, one declaration. Imagine a group of ants pulling a dead caterpillar back to their nest. Individually, none of them could accomplish the task. They have to work as a group, but they don't all have to pull in exactly the same direction at the same time. As long as they have general agreement on their goal and the sum of the vectors over time move in that direction, they succeed. Finally, it isn't necessary to even set our goal letter perfect just yet. The wheel had to be invented before the cart and the cart before carriage. Most progress happens through a series of iterations. We only need agree in broad terms what direction we want to move in. For my money, that process will be greatly expedited if we choose and recognize leaders- such as yourself. Regardless of your determination to say otherwise, you became the leader of this discussion from day one and have remained so. You did so by, well- leading. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Ahkenaten

22nd March 2011, 02:07

and as I think recent history has shown us decentralized nodes may well prove more practical and effective than any monolithic structure ... also as I have repeatedly said the ant is the one thing the elephant fears most of all............the army of billions of ants working silently on the jungle floor can silently attack and devour the mighty elephant in his sleep leaving only bones in hours......(grisly metaphor I know, but it serves a purpose)

Chicodoodoo

22nd March 2011, 06:43

Thanks for the less destructive comments, Hawkwind, but I'm serious here. If you have a better idea, nothing would please me more than to scrap this Declaration and go with something better. But I warn you, it has to be better, because if it is not, I will be all over it like a bad rash. If we don't get this right, it will never fly.

It just seems that you're thoughts are coming more from your head than your heart.

Without the mind to guide it, the heart wanders aimlessly, always following the next feeling.

The flock of birds that you want to see won't follow any written instructions on how to fly and when to turn.

The instructions are only to help create the flock so that, once formed, they will have the means to choose their own direction.

They'll be connected to each other heart to heart and each follow where that leads.

They had also better be connected mind to mind if they expect to do more than just twirl around in place.

Also, in terms of instituting social change, it isn't necessary to form one large group. There already are thousands of groups working to make the world a better place

There have always been thousands of groups, and that has never amounted to anything. Thousands of groups can make thousands of small changes, but they will never be coordinated or create a viable "organism" that can move all of its parts with conscious direction and purpose. It will require almost everyone organizing into a single group, just like the cells of your body. United they stand, divided they fall. One cooperating group.

It's not necessary that everyone in every group gets behind one idea, one declaration.

I agree. But it will require a large majority, maybe 80%, agreeing to unite and organize. The Declaration has only one purpose -- to get that majority to commit to evolving as a unit. The Blueprint (or Constitution), which we have hardly discussed yet, will give that unit the structural design to function independently. But that is the cart, and the Declaration is the wheel, to use your analogy. Unless we have a wheel, there will be no cart.

Regardless of your determination to say otherwise, you became the leader of this discussion from day one and have remained so. You did so by, well - leading. I don't see that as a bad thing.

The model I am proposing will not use a hierarchy. I realize that during this transition period, this birthing process, people will follow their habits and desire to rally behind a leader. That leader does not have to be me. I'm as bad as the rest of you people and would just as soon follow a leader myself. They don’t call us sheeple for nothing. But this "organism", when it is assembled like a cart on wheels, will drive itself. There will be no leader that you can point to, though there will surely be respected individuals. All individuals desiring to participate will work towards the common good, because all will be part of the common good. And as unnatural as it seems to us at the moment, all will want to participate. There will be no higher calling than serving the common good, because that is the highest calling.

skippy

22nd March 2011, 08:17

2 remarks:

1. I don't want Chicodoodoo to be the leader of this. The new model doesn't have a hierarchy.
2. "There will be no higher calling than serving the common good, because that is the highest calling." Please Chico, don't fill in for others. For you it's the common good, for others its called God, transcendence, cosmic conscienceness, bouddha nature, oneness, flying with the birds, etc.

Hawkwind

22nd March 2011, 11:31

1. I don't want Chicodoodoo to be the leader of this. The new model doesn't have a hierarchy.

We're getting caught up in semantics. When I said that Chico has been the leader of this discussion I meant that he has been the most active force moving it forward. I'm talking about the function of leading, not an immutable appointment to some official status. The new model may not have presidents, kings or grand, high, omnipotent, chief muckity mucks, but if it's going to go anywhere it will still have leaders.

OnyxKnight

22nd March 2011, 12:08

Well, in case some didn't notice, we are being poisoned on each daily aspect of our lives. Rights are taken, we live as slaves. Chico's declaration is very calm in comparison how many would word it to be. I don't see any anger there. Just a small hint of frustration that everybody who knows this truth would be transmitting it into the words they write/type.

(I do on the other hand, disagree, and dislike, how Chico presented some members to be, like they have some psychological and sociological disorders etc.)

Some members here said we don't want to make it an "obligation" for others. Well, if they want to live on this Earth, there are certain rules that need to be followed, I'm sorry. Those who pulled the middle finger on this planet are now at the top doing what they do. You don't want others who think there are no rules to be followed on this planet to think the same, and one day slowly create a "ladder" and climb on it, and do what they want, like these days, do you?

These "rules", and "obligations" are set in place so that we could keep this planet clean, safe, and lasting for the next generations that will take our place after we pass away. What would be the efforts of all this if only a small number of us now, take an oath to fix things, and waste time, resources and energy on something that others, most likely future generations would tumble it down back to square one?

Many civilizations before us seem to have made mistakes, especially on this matter. Let's turn the tables this one time in history? Prove that we can be something else other than parasites for others of our kind, other life forms and the environment and planet itself?

No obligations - we might as well not change this system. This planet needs fixing. Without "obligations" or certain "rules" to be followed, nothing is going to fix the damage already done now, nor will it maintain that optimal state in the future.

Hawkwind

22nd March 2011, 13:13

Thanks for the less destructive comments, Hawkwind, but I'm serious here. If you have a better idea, nothing would please me more than to scrap this Declaration and go with something better.

I'm sorry that you perceived my comments as destructive. They weren't meant to be so. They were spoken from my heart to yours. If they became hurtful, something got lost in translation. I don't have an idea for a better declaration for everyone to get behind, no. As I said, I don't feel it's necessary or even desirable to formulate one. If that's the path you wish to take, best wishes and happy hunting. I'll help where and when I can, but it's just not something I can follow. I'm thinking to organize an experiment that may demonstrate a path I'd be more comfortable with. I don't quite know how to pull the technical aspects off just yet, but once I get that sussed I'll let you know.

Without the mind to guide it, the heart wanders aimlessly, always following the next feeling.
Trust me, we're talking about entirely different things here, but as Morpheus said to Neo- There is no way anyone can tell you what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself. I can say this- the mind (or at least what I'm referring to when I use that word) is an interface between physical reality and the deeper and higher aspects of yourself. It can be a useful navigation tool, but allow it to drive the bus at your own risk. A flock of birds does not move through coordinated mental effort any more than you could learn to ride a bicycle by reading a manual.

The instructions are only to help create the flock so that, once formed, they will have the means to choose their own direction.The instructions are already written in every being's heart. It's not a matter of translating them to forms which the mind can comprehend. It's a matter of quieting the mind and listening to what's already inside you.

They had also better be connected mind to mind if they expect to do more than just twirl around in place.The fact that they don't twirl around in place or, more to the point, devolve into a hopelessly chaotic mess, continually crashing into each other is –for me- undeniable testimony that they are not operating from mind.

There have always been thousands of groups, and that has never amounted to anything. Thousands of groups can make thousands of small changes, but they will never be coordinated or create a viable "organism" that can move all of its parts with conscious direction and purpose. It will require almost everyone organizing into a single group, just like the cells of your body. United they stand, divided they fall. One cooperating group.
And did the cells of your body organize themselves through mental effort?
"Okay, let's check your genetic markers, shall we? You're heart stem cell number 837,412. Right, blood vessel 172 to the heart then join up with the other heart stem cells there and start multiplying. Off you go!"
"But, I don't want to be a heart cell. I want to stay here and help with decision making, like you."
"Look, mate. You're a heart cell and that's the end of it. This isn't a bloody democracy. Now, off you go or I'll call the guards."
"Well, this is tyranny! I won't stand for it. Who are you to tell me where I should go and what I should be? I know my rights!"
"Right then, a nutter. Leukocytes!"
Do you remember any such conversations taking place in your mind? If you do, suggest you seek help immediately.
There may always have been thousands of groups, but they have never in recorded history had such a degree of connectivity as exists today. The flock you seek to form already exists. It becomes visible on occasion, as recently happened in Egypt, then dissipates back into seeming non-existence. I trust that you are doing exactly what you need to be doing at this moment and I'm doing exactly what I need to be doing for this global passion play to unfold into a place more beautiful than either of our conscious minds could ever achieve or even conceive as possible.

it will require a large majority, maybe 80%, agreeing to unite and organize.
I seriously doubt that most of the people on the planet will sufficiently awaken in time to survive what I believe is likely to soon take place. It would be very nice to be very wrong about that, but that isn't what my heart tells me. It's not my place to try and force anyone to wake up. My place is to become as awake and aware as I can possibly be and to help who I can as I can while remaining respectful of their freewill choices.

They don’t call us sheeple for nothing.
I assure you, there are no sheep in my totem. The tiger in me ate them. *buuuurp* Ooops, excuse me.

Chicodoodoo

22nd March 2011, 16:41

(I do on the other hand, disagree, and dislike, how Chico presented some members to be, like they have some psychological and sociological disorders etc.)

I knew my actions on this would be misunderstood, but whether people like it or not, or like me or not, I have to put all my cards on the table in order to have complete transparency. I then deal with the misunderstandings when they occur.

It may appear to some that I was attacking our anonymous "No" voter when I pointed out his cognitive dissonance that results from the pervasive mind control that we are all constantly subjected to. I did use him as an example for two reasons. One was because he was to remain unidentified, which mitigates the distaste we all have for personal attacks. The other reason was because the example was so pronounced that it was clearly visible, making it an instructive case.

I would just as well have used my own case as an example, if I could have had a pronounced example of it at hand to work with. I learned to recognize my own brainwashing, my own psychological disorders, by analyzing my own cognitive dissonance! If someone could have pointed it out to me earlier, it would have saved me a lot of time and trouble, and I would have been grateful. I was simply following the Golden Rule -- "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you." Because this mind manipulation is a disease we all suffer from, any caring human would try to share the cure with others. That was my intent. Because I understand that we are all one, that person that voted "No" is us. He is me. I want to know the truth, and I believe we all do, so when I think I have the truth, I lay it on the table for all to examine. The messenger that delivers the truth is often shot, but he delivers it anyway, for that is his duty.

Hawkwind: Note that the shooting of the messenger is an action of the heart, not of the mind. The heart cannot be given free reign, nor can the mind. What is needed is the correct balance of heart and mind. That is where many sociopaths fail, for they are all mind and no heart. That is where many non-sociopaths fail, for they are all heart and no mind.

king anthony

22nd March 2011, 19:20

Chicodoodoo and I had PM'd each other prior to this post.

I would like to say, I was the first one to vote 'no'; I say this, not with 'pride'. I chose to PM Chicodoodoo offering my explanation; he asked and I gave. I wanted to remain anonymous, so the thread would not lose integrity and continue to move forward in a positive manner - this has obviously failed.

I personally do not feel Chicodoodoo's rebuttals to my points (posts #11 and #57) were, [quote] '...attacking our anonymous "No" voter...'; he was simply stating his position - something everyone has been doing here.

In brief (and in a different way) I will explain my rationale to my 'no' vote. The point of the 'Declaration of Independence' is not about how one or many shall live after it has been made (such as rules and authority) - it is about giving notice to the 'ruling class' that 'one' is no longer a part of the current establishment.

This is done as evidence, to protect one down the road, if/or when needed; example, if one needed to rely on sovereignty as a defense in court, the defense already is and must be accepted by the court; another example is proof that government materials were given back.

From what I have read so far, in this thread and others, most do not know what they are doing/talking about or what it means. There are some who do. How can anyone actually believe they can make a better tomorrow for the world, when they cannot even make things better for themselves. How can anyone have 'spiritual' freedom, when they cannot even be free in body? This topic has long turned into a massive peeing contest, misdirection and nonsense - this is why I have been silent until now.

Everyone claims to be 'awake', I say, eyes may be open but many are still dreaming. Many speak how corrupt the system is regarding Julian Assange's (WikiLeaks) treatment by the 'ruling class' - yet, most people have done the very same thing here. Be ashamed. I may not agree how Chicodoodoo and supporters have approached this topic (in draft), but I showed him (and others) respect when I voted 'no'.

I have attempted to explain what needs to be done in other threads, which has fallen on deaf ears. I am willing to go toe-to-toe (via PM) with anyone who is willing to have an educated and informed discussion about true 'freedom' - not a make-believe or a half-butt attempt at it based on what someone else wrote about or posted in a video.

Formally declare freedom/independence first, and worry about the rest later - stop putting the 'cart before the horse'. It is easier to simply feel good about discussing the topic and do nothing - what sacrifice has been made by most here, other then time in threads. I will be silent on this topic from here on in.

I have posted this to aid Chicodoodoo in his efforts. Good luck to all.

Hawkwind

22nd March 2011, 19:24

Hawkwind: Note that the shooting of the messenger is an action of the heart, not of the mind. The heart cannot be given free reign, nor can the mind. What is needed is the correct balance of heart and mind. That is where many sociopaths fail, for they are all mind and no heart. That is where many non-sociopaths fail, for they are all heart and no mind.

Again, I think we're getting hung up on semantics. When you say heart you are referring to the source of reactive emotion. When I say heart I'm referring to the connection each of us has to Godhead/True Mind/Higher Self/Christ consciousness/peace that passeth understanding... (um, you probably get the idea). It's a state of being about as far from reactive emotion as you can get. One most certainly does not shoot the messenger from that place.

Hawkwind

22nd March 2011, 19:31

I have attempted to explain what needs to be done in other threads, which has fallen on deaf ears. I am willing to go toe-to-toe (via PM) with anyone who is willing to have an educated and informed discussion about true 'freedom' - not a make-believe or a half-butt attempt at it based on what someone else wrote about or posted in a video.

Can you either post links here to the posts you've made which more clearly express your views or PM them to me. I don't know about going toe to toe, but I'd definitely like to hear more about what you have to say.

Chicodoodoo

22nd March 2011, 20:26

When you say heart you are referring to the source of reactive emotion. When I say heart I'm referring to the connection each of us has to Godhead/True Mind/Higher Self/Christ consciousness/peace that passeth understanding...

We speak the exact same language, and we can hardly understand a word the other is saying (or writing)!

That is, in reality, a much bigger problem than what I am trying to do by convincing us all of the need to unite and organize. You would think uniting and organizing would be a no-brainer! But no, the words get in the way. And if our connection to the {insert name here} was indeed as solid as so many claim, the words wouldn't get in the way! We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't!

Well, I'll be damned.....

buckminster fuller

22nd March 2011, 20:43

jorr lundstrom

22nd March 2011, 20:55

Understanding is always a heart issue.:playball:

Understanding is not possible on any other level. :ranger:

So, if you want to understand, where do you have to go?

dukes4monny

22nd March 2011, 21:40

Hmmm, an interesting thread. It reminded me of this:

-23kmhc3P8U

Chicodoodoo

22nd March 2011, 22:08

Hmmm, an interesting thread. It reminded me of this:

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

dukes4monny

23rd March 2011, 09:13

Hmmm, an interesting thread. It reminded me of this:

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Your poll very nearly caught me.........I felt compelled to agree with your declaration and very nearly fell into the trap(?) of clicking and not really considering the declaration.
Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiments expressed in the declaration, for me they 'go without saying' (or writing them down).
We have lived with 'Rules' for many years, that is what school teaches us. We now need life without rules (or Rulers).

OnyxKnight

23rd March 2011, 12:18

Your poll very nearly caught me.........I felt compelled to agree with your declaration and very nearly fell into the trap(?) of clicking and not really considering the declaration.
Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiments expressed in the declaration, for me they 'go without saying' (or writing them down).
We have lived with 'Rules' for many years, that is what school teaches us. We now need life without rules (or Rulers).

Sometimes, you just gotta repeat yourself to point out the big "WHY" part in your statement:

Well, in case some didn't notice, we are being poisoned on each daily aspect of our lives. Rights are taken, we live as slaves. Chico's declaration is very calm in comparison how many would word it to be. I don't see any anger there. Just a small hint of frustration that everybody who knows this truth would be transmitting it into the words they write/type.

(I do on the other hand, disagree, and dislike, how Chico presented some members to be, like they have some psychological and sociological disorders etc.)

Some members here said we don't want to make it an "obligation" for others. Well, if they want to live on this Earth, there are certain rules that need to be followed, I'm sorry. Those who pulled the middle finger on this planet are now at the top doing what they do. You don't want others who think there are no rules to be followed on this planet to think the same, and one day slowly create a "ladder" and climb on it, and do what they want, like these days, do you?

These "rules", and "obligations" are set in place so that we could keep this planet clean, safe, and lasting for the next generations that will take our place after we pass away. What would be the efforts of all this if only a small number of us now, take an oath to fix things, and waste time, resources and energy on something that others, most likely future generations would tumble it down back to square one?

Many civilizations before us seem to have made mistakes, especially on this matter. Let's turn the tables this one time in history? Prove that we can be something else other than parasites for others of our kind, other life forms and the environment and planet itself?

No obligations - we might as well not change this system. This planet needs fixing. Without "obligations" or certain "rules" to be followed, nothing is going to fix the damage already done now, nor will it maintain that optimal state in the future.

Icecold

23rd March 2011, 12:39

Bucky:

That is proof of what..? You just don't get it wolfy, I wont get into your egotistic behaviour, specially when you're trying to sell us that spiritual view of yours, seems you forgot on the way all that make a good soul seeing all this agressivity. The declaration has nothing to do with rules and regulations, it is meant to be a message so that people unite. It is not meant to rule their lives.
Stop barking.

There's nothing aggressive about my spiel. You just don't like it that's all and its got your goat.

It proves my point about this line of reasoning. If people don't like your system, they will surely get the treatment.

No free will. No wonder there was no move to include Freedoms in the declaration, its all about rules and authority. Your declaration crushes spirituality dead.

Like I said, you proved my point. ;)

Chicodoodoo

23rd March 2011, 21:24

We have lived with 'Rules' for many years, that is what school teaches us. We now need life without rules (or Rulers).

Rules or no rules, that is the question.

Actually, that’s not the question. The question is should we unite and organize or not. That’s what the Declaration is about. Perhaps I should have posted a poll that simply asked, “Should humans unite and organize?” It would be interesting to see the results and discussions of that poll.

Getting back to the rules question, it would be wonderful not to need rules. However, in a world that includes psychopaths, sociopaths, and criminals, how could that possibly work?

I think it’s clear that we have to have rules. I also think it’s clear that:

- there are far too many rules
- the rules are too complex (think IRS)
- many rules are bad rules
- most of us had no say in making those rules
- worst of all, sociopaths and criminals have become the rule-makers

The Declaration is an attempt to unite and organize people so that they can address these and many other problems.

In a nutshell, we have a huge problem. Those that are subject to the rules must be the ones making the rules. That is not the case now, it has not been the case in the past, and it needs to be changed before we become enslaved by the rules.

InCiDeR

23rd March 2011, 21:41

To let people enjoy total freedom, you have to have many rules.

dukes4monny

23rd March 2011, 22:30

Thank you Chicodoodoo for your concise reply, and I do admit that perhaps the whole poll has kind of been sidetracked with semantics. As you say it would have been interesting to have had a different title.......

You raise an interesting point about needing rules for psychopaths, sociopaths etc., I think that these groups of people that have these 'traits' are actually a symptom of the system that we have all been forced to try and survive in........and I'd like to think that in a perfect Eutopia that we are all aiming for, these traits would no longer exist.........?

Those that are subject to the rules must be the ones making the rules. That is not the case now,
and that is exactly what has happened to this poll ;)

I think that we all agree that we have a huge problem, and perhaps this next statement needs a whole new thread:

For anybody to want to 'fight', they need to know what they are fighting for? To get rid of the PTB, when we are successful - "And we will be" (pun intended), what then? We start with rules, then do we have a money system? and I think that you can see where this is going..........

I think that what we need at this stage is a vision of what the new world will look like, whether it's the Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) or the idyllic world of The Green Beautiful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5CmMm_SRpM), once we have sold this idea to everyone, awake or not, the PTB would just fade away..........

As you can tell, this is a passion of mine, and I do tend to waffle............I will now shut up :tape:

Edit: I've now voted

Evelon

23rd March 2011, 23:51

I replied with 'yes', but I want to appoint some things here, due to my point of view and understanding of the very nature of all.
First of all, If I may, I will ask you all, regardless of the answers you may give me, just think about it for one second, go back in time, humans, were, and they are still animals of some sort, we are species, like any other animal, but... we are intelligent, we create things, because we discover, we discover because we are curious. That has led us to here. I agree with the declaration, but if I may, I think, people back at that date, didn't have any rules, they were born free, and if you want to go somewhere, to visit or to establish a settlement of your own, you were free to do so, no one is sure if it was like that, but In the very inner of myself, I can feel that I live in a world that, I'm not happy about. Why? Because I cannot go to some other distand land without spending money, money that I don't have! What is this? Who the hell TOLD to the world that HE HAS THE RIGHT to put BORDERS at the very planet in which we are all born ?? I know what you are going to say but, stay with me.... The people that tear the very freedom that we had, are responsables for many things, because, they want power. We avalonians don't want power do we? We want freedom, we want to travel, explore, create. The point is that, one human CAN't put some rules to others, because he though it was the better thing, No one, I MEAN NO ONE! Can decide what is the better thing for me. I have to do it by myself! If I was to be wrong, then I should learn by my mistake. But regardless of that I agree with you people, I, We, All of us, had enough of this! We don't need borders, we don't need money, we need love, trust, unity, we need INDEPENDENCE from them! That Is why I voted 'YES'.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

To let people enjoy total freedom, you have to have many rules.
To let the people enjoy the freedom, you don't need rules.....

InCiDeR

24th March 2011, 00:07

[/COLOR]
To let people enjoy total freedom, you have to have many rules. To let the people enjoy the freedom, you don't need rules.....

Consider my statement for a moment or two more... ;)

Icecold

24th March 2011, 02:27

[/COLOR]
To let people enjoy total freedom, you have to have many rules. To let the people enjoy the freedom, you don't need rules.....

Consider my statement for a moment or two more... ;)

I would qualify this message and say, that the particular rules could and should be an essential part of one's spiritual character.
Therefore, though there is a complex ruleset, it is innately part of an individual's spiritual makeup.
An STO way of life would demand an individual to follow closely, the Karmic rules of the universe.

This negates the need for rules and authority being imposed by groups.
:decision:.............:grouphug:

modwiz

24th March 2011, 02:43

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 02:53

the particular rules could and should be an essential part of one's spiritual character.

This negates the need for rules and authority being imposed by groups.

Could and should, but often aren't and sometimes can't be (e.g. sociopaths, criminals, and others). This confirms the need for rules, but not rules imposed by some external group. Humanity itself, all of humanity, a united humanity, has to create the rules that it is willing to live by. And by reserving that power unto itself as a united group, it guarantees the needed flexibility to adjust the rules as the united group sees fit.

InCiDeR

24th March 2011, 02:58

@Icecold
You interpret my statement well. This was what I meant with "rules".

@modwiz,
Well put my friend.

dukes4monny

24th March 2011, 07:56

skippy

24th March 2011, 09:01

GY3yxz1h2XA

Evelon

24th March 2011, 12:26

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6Sb6RmRMbBY

dukes4monny

24th March 2011, 13:06

Perhaps we should put the children in charge.........?

dukes4monny

24th March 2011, 14:55

modwiz

24th March 2011, 15:11

There is also nomenclature to consider. An enlightened people know what is dishonorable or not, unless you are broken and then the enlightened part is null and void.

Back to nomenclature.....Instead of rules or laws you have "ways". A properly functioning society would understand their ways in a manner akin to not singing out of tune in a choir.

People who see things differently can go and make/find another community.

Doing things in new ways will take exploring many levels of ourselves both personally and interpersonally.

Done with love it would all be a great unfolding of our higher potentials. Like a flower bud opening into bloom.

Wise words, thank you. I have one question for you regarding this:

An enlightened people know what is dishonorable or not, unless you are broken and then the enlightened part is null and void

Do we not have to be first broken to then become enlightened?

IMO. We are all, with rare exceptions, raised broken. Our religions break us early, (and they broke our parents who also may break us) and hope to keep us that way. The mind-farking we get from organized media does constant damage to cause, enhance and/or maintain our brokeness.

The messengers that are the core of religions are not the real problem.

To answer your original question, no, we do not need to be broken first to be enlightened but it is a good way to make lemonade from lemons. :laugh:

jorr lundstrom

24th March 2011, 15:15

Every kind of authority makes freedom impossible.:high5:

Bryn ap Gwilym

24th March 2011, 15:41

I voted yes, but I'm not happy that folk are moaning with other people's choice & are wanting/demanding to know why. Basically its the same bullying tactic that the corrupt use for character assassination & to shame them, & in itself goes against my grain.
For this alone, I'm sorry now that I didn't vote NO!

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 16:24

KRISHNAMURTI video

"Change completely," Krishnamurti says. He's right, but it must be done gradually to have the best chance of succeeding. Revolutions have a low success rate, while gradual change has a higher success rate. It worked for the sociopaths, and it can work against them.

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 16:36

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6Sb6RmRMbBY

Good gracious alive! This girl has absolutely nailed it! We need to listen to her. This is why we must unite, why we must organize, and why we must change.

Bravo! This is one of those prized moments when one of my fellow humans makes me proud to be human.

jorr lundstrom

24th March 2011, 16:38

IMO, there is no such thing as gradual change. Its a trick of the mind

to postpone. There is only the decision to change, to have had enough of

the minds torture. Change is a treshold, a new beginning that never ends.

It can be a result of seeing that wot has filled my life upto now is BS and

not the diamonds I imagined it to be. I suggested in an other thread two

months ago that wot it takes is to jump without a parachute. To take a leap

into the unknown, from the tyranny of the known. The unknown is our own self.:rapture:

skippy

24th March 2011, 17:21

To let people enjoy total freedom, you have to have many rules.
To let the people enjoy the freedom, you don't need rules.....

It's important to know whether rules are being created to limit the capacity of man being an enemy to his fellow man. The social structures and the rules that will be put forward in the new model, are they to limit the consequences of the ongoing state of war between man, or are they to limit the infinite ethical relationship between human beings? I'm not sure whether total freedom should be the main driver in all this.

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 18:06

IMO, there is no such thing as gradual change. Its a trick of the mind

It's all in your mind, Jorr. That's the point -- it starts as an idea. The idea is that for change to occur, we have to be united. When we are finally all united, the actual change will occur with great speed. But all the preparation, the planting of the idea and the growth of that idea, all of that occurs gradually. So both concepts are correct --- a gradual change of conciousness followed by sudden change of reality.

Evelon

24th March 2011, 18:12

No, thank you. :) I just speak of what my mind and heart say to me.

Hawkwind

24th March 2011, 18:25

“Should humans unite and organize?” It would be interesting to see the results and discussions of that poll.

It is not my desire to derail your efforts, so I leave this to you. I think taking a step back from a poll of the declaration as it exists would be beneficial to achieving the goals stated within it. I'd like to propose a new poll be started, along the following lines:

We the netizens of Project Avalon are capable of designing and implementing better social systems (political, legal, economic, etc.) than those which are currently dominant on this planet, and it is in our interest to do so.

Agree/Disagree

I hereby submit this idea for consideration and review.

Ahkenaten

24th March 2011, 18:30

Chicodoodoo I have been thinking of what you are trying to do here and I wonder about this: what about the issue of "leadership"? For example I was thinking of Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Joan D'Arc, I could go on and on. There is something about the human being and I know this does not apply to each of us but I suspect most - that resonates with the leadership archetype. People who ordinarily would do nothing are galvanized into taking dynamic action by the presence of a leader. The Leader shows by his or her thoughts and actions, by their very stand in physical reality - their facial expressions, tone of voice, stance, etc. that certain things thought impossible are possible. The Leader shows the way. Of course I realize the pitfalls of that and pitfalls associated with people resonating with and aligning with charismatic leaders such as Adolf Hitler. But I suspect that if it were not for Gandhi India would not have wrested its "freedom" (in reality that was, IMO, entering another historic energetic vector) nor would the civil rights movement in the US made lasting change in the US without Martin Luther King........and so, do we simply ignore this aspect of being human? I think the utter lack of leadership that unites people across differences in the US right now has left the people's soft underbelly open and utterly vulnerable to the predations of the most terrible carnivores/cannibals in human history.

I would like to hear your thoughts. Somehow the prospects of humans being led by a Committee - and I use that term loosely not knowing what else to call the alternatives/options to charismatic enlightened human leadership - to me smacks of some wacked played out socialistic/communistic nightmare. Been there, done that. The consensus/committee model has been used very effectively against us for some time. At this point I am feeling very frustrated!

I am sensing that we might be up against something in our nature, here..............maybe we are only noble animals, after all, at best! That is not to say we do not have a Spirit! :ohwell:

Sorry for exuding negativity. Current events are weighing on me.

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 19:20

what about the issue of "leadership"?

Somehow the prospects of humans being led by a Committee …. to me smacks of some wacked played out socialistic/communistic nightmare.

I love the question. It’s very pertinent. I don’t see you “exuding” negativity here at all. I see you exuding the reality of our situation.

A great leader is an uplifting thing, without a doubt. A bad leader is a crippling thing, without a doubt. We’ve had our share of both, mostly the latter. What has never been tried, as far as I know, is for us as a group to lead ourselves. At the group level, we have always been stuck in the “need a leader” paradigm. Why? At the family level, as fathers and mothers, are we afraid to lead? Of course not! We lead because we want what is best for our family. Why is it any different at the species level? Why can we not unite as a species and work for what is best for our “family”, not only the family of man, but the family of life?

The consensus/committee model has been used very effectively against us for some time.

Yes, but the consensus model has never been used effectively FOR us! I believe it can be, and that’s what I think we should consider pursuing. If we unite, and if we can structure an effective consensus model, I think our future will finally be in our own hands. The technology to do it is finally available. The incentive to do it is finally available (we are rapidly approaching “do or die”). We just need to do it.

One last point about leaders. Imagine you are the ideal leader, and people rally behind you because you inspire them to greatness. What will the organized sociopaths that oppose your movement do? They will take you out. Without you, the people are now lost. But what if the people lead themselves. What can the sociopaths do now? Their choice is to either take out all the people, or join the movement.

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 19:29

“Should humans unite and organize?” It would be interesting to see the results and discussions of that poll.

I'd like to propose a new poll be started, along the following lines:

We the netizens of Project Avalon are capable of designing and implementing better social systems (political, legal, economic, etc.) than those which are currently dominant on this planet, and it is in our interest to do so.

Agree/Disagree

I hereby submit this idea for consideration and review.

Are we capable? That is the real challenge, and it remains to be seen. Perhaps the poll question should be:

We the netizens of Project Avalon should design and implement a better social system (to include political, legal, economic, etc.) than that which is currently dominant on our planet, and it is in the interest of all humanity that we do so.

Hawkwind

24th March 2011, 19:51

Perhaps the poll question should be:

We the netizens of Project Avalon should design and implement a better social system (to include political, legal, economic, etc.) than that which is currently dominant on our planet, and it is in the interest of all humanity that we do so.

I don't much like anyone telling me what I "should" do. I don't mind reaching agreement with others on what we together can do. I like the rest of your revision though.

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 20:00

I don't much like anyone telling me what I "should" do.

Hey, it's just a poll. No one is telling you what you should do. It's just a question to gauge consensus. Each person simply states whether he agrees or disagrees. In other words, do we think we should do this, or not. It doesn't mean we will do it.

Semantics matters, as we have seen with the 4 "No" votes for the Declaration, so if you can think of better wording, propose it and we'll see what kind of objections pop up.

dukes4monny

24th March 2011, 20:45

We the netizens of Project Avalon should design and implement a better social system (to include political, legal, economic, etc.) than that which is currently dominant on our planet, and it is in the interest of all humanity that we do so.

But we wont need any systems. Political, legal and economic systems are the 'bars' on our current prison cell, they just wont be needed any more. Just let true anarchy (self rule) flourish and we'll all be fine :whoo:

Hawkwind

24th March 2011, 20:48

Hey, it's just a poll. No one is telling you what you should do. It's just a question to gauge consensus.

Can and should are still two entirely different issues, and I still think it would be better to gauge consensus on possibility before moving on to consensus of advisability. I'd also very much like to hear our resident anarchists' views on this proposal.

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 21:27

Can and should are still two entirely different issues, and I still think it would be better to gauge consensus on possibility before moving on to consensus of advisability.

We the netizens of Project Avalon should consider designing and implementing a better social system (to include political, legal, economic, etc.) than that which is currently dominant on our planet, and it is in the interest of all humanity that we do so.

skippy

24th March 2011, 21:40

Can we reformulate the following part: ".. a better social system (to include political, legal, economic, etc.) .."

I think it's too close to the current model... I'm sure there is another way.

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 21:45

But we wont need any systems. Political, legal and economic systems are the 'bars' on our current prison cell, they just wont be needed any more. Just let true anarchy (self rule) flourish and we'll all be fine :whoo:

We are already talking about self rule, but organized self rule. This is different from anarchy, which is unorganized self-rule. Now, it may be that we are operating off of two different definitions of anarchy, which might explain the misunderstanding.

With organized self-rule, you still need systems. It may be that there is no money, but there may still be an economy of good intentions and actions. It may be that there are no politicians, but there may still be politics that take place when individuals interact as equals (and I suspect there will be). It may be that there are no lawyers, but there may still be some laws or a way to maintain the cohesion and structure of society.

Think of primitive, multi-celled life forms as a model. At first they are only united cells, and there is very little in the way of systems, other than "inside" and "outside". As they evolve, they develop primitive systems that serve the whole. These evolve over time into more complex systems, and pretty soon you get something pretty complex, like an ant, or a dog, which are full of systems that are very useful indeed but still serve the whole organism.

Seikou-Kishi

24th March 2011, 21:55

"We, the Netizens of Project Avalon, in Order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

Maybe we should have a declaration of independence, notifying 'our' various governments that for their innumerable violations we are notifying them of our personal secession from those said governments, the invalidity of a social contract contracted under duress notwithstanding.

jorr lundstrom

24th March 2011, 21:56

We the netizens of Project Avalon should consider designing and implementing a better social system (to include political, legal, economic, etc.) than that which is currently dominant on our planet, and it is in the interest of all humanity that we do so.

Who has written this? Who can decide wot we on PA should do?

Who can decide wots in the interest of all humanity?:ranger:

Its a joke, isnt it?

Hawkwind

24th March 2011, 22:00

But we wont need any systems. Political, legal and economic systems are the 'bars' on our current prison cell, they just wont be needed any more. Just let true anarchy (self rule) flourish and we'll all be fine :whoo:

Once there are a sufficient number of sufficiently enlightened people on the planet, true anarchy might work. I don't think we're anywhere near that at present. If we allow the current social systems to collapse and/or help them to do so without having something better ready to replace them, I don't think the results would be pretty- given humanity's current level of spiritual/psychological evolution or lack thereof. It should, however, be possible to work out stable transition systems which would allow people who prefer true anarchy and are ready to live thus to co-exist side by side with other groups. In any case, if we take no action due to our inability to reach consensus on perfect action, the current social systems will continue to carry us along our current trajectory- which to me looks like an imminent train wreck.

Hawkwind

24th March 2011, 22:08

Who can decide wots in the interest of all humanity?:ranger:

Its a joke, isnt it?

Each individual should be free to decide what is in his or her own best interest. Our current social systems, however, are making that increasingly difficult. We're trying to arrive at a viable means to change that. Do you have a better idea?

Chicodoodoo

24th March 2011, 22:11

Who has written this? Who can decide wot we on PA should do?

Who can decide wots in the interest of all humanity?:ranger:

Its a joke, isnt it?

No, it's just a poll to measure consensus. Anybody can write one, and we're playing around with writing one as a group, which is something different (very Avalonian).

A poll doesn't oblige anyone to do anything, so don't panic.

Hawkwind

24th March 2011, 22:57

How does this one sound?

The current social systems dominant on our planet serve an elite few while subjugating and exploiting the majority of inhabitants of the planet, as well as the planet itself. The netizens of Project Avalon could work together at defining systems which would better serve the people and the planet. Once defined, they could be tested within our online community and if viable, then shared with other communities both on-line and real world.

Agree/Disagree

Bollinger

24th March 2011, 23:04

This is a very large topic. Philosophers of past and present have discussed all aspects of political governance but it is not within the nature of human beings to stick to any set of rules all the time regardless of how logical, benevolent, ingenious or effective it appears on paper. It's not without reason. We are each of us different and have very different outlooks on the whole aspect of existence. Each one of us has a wide spectrum of needs, desires, beliefs and convictions. No single set of rules can or will ever satisfy everyone.

It is so easy to state ideals such as justice and peace and yet in reality, they are very abstract concepts. Everyday-life mucks everything up. Take a simple scenario. You get on a train and some soul comes and sits next to you. He proceeds to open up his paper, arms stretched wide, almost in your face. What do you do? The normal reaction is simply to grin and bear it. We are not even talking about wars, famines and pestilence; just everyday simple little irritations that get on our nerves and make us angry. For example someone says or does something, possibly without even meaning to, and it annoys you. What do you do? Your reaction is determined by your character, upbringing, courtesy, politeness, temperament, mood, and a host of other things that I’m sure you can add.

Even if we lived under a perfect set of principles, do you really think we could tolerate each other all the time, every time and forever more? This begs the question: is it our principles or is it us with which there is something very wrong?

The question being posed in this thread is: Can you support the United People Declaration? Unless one is particularly soulless and sadistic, who in their right mind would not support such a fine set of ideals?

There is plenty of evidence in society to suggest that happiness for all (which I presume is the ultimate prize we’re aiming for) is actually not something that can be maintained indefinitely no matter who you are or what you have. It is very much a transitory concept which varies greatly from being completely non-existent for some to violently fluctuating for others.

Money plays a large role in this particular game we call life. So, naturally we attribute much of our discontent to the lack of it because this limits the fulfilment of certain needs and wants that we perceive to be the route to our happiness. But then, how often have we seen those with lots of money end up destroying themselves? It is often said that health is more important than money for the attainment of happiness. Without a doubt. How then can one explain the existence of people who are healthy and wealthy and still unhappy? Are these people mad, stupid, and insane or are they simply human beings?

No, I am afraid we ourselves are sick and I don’t know if there is even a cure. It is therefore unlikely that, a set of fine, well-meaning clauses on a piece of paper or on a forum thread, or even a mighty declaration made by a set of upstanding people, is ever going to be enough to banish this disease from our midst.

I’d like to leave with a remark that is somewhat less bleak in nature than those above. Maybe, just maybe, this new dawn that is believed by so many to be about to break in order to facilitate the great human upgrade will finally mean the end to this abject disease from which, without exception, we all suffer every minute of every day.

Evelon

24th March 2011, 23:26

Look people.... I read all your postings and etc... and I stopped at the end of them, and I though... You are all speaking of a different way of leading or living thru different systems or not systems of all, everyone is telling a problem with one of the system that I's argued about.... Well let me stop you, and tell you all, YOU WON'T FIND THE PERFECT SYSTEM OR WAY, there is no such thing as PERFECT, Every system and WAY has problems, we cannot build a system in which it wont have problems, stop worrying so much about the systems and ways. One step by the time. First of all, we have to deal with those monsters that are ruling us, then we need to think of a WAY, and I say WAY, not system.... in which we could all live in harmony. Ofcourse, I know and I'm sure of it, that even those ways will have their own problems and some people's disagreements... But those people should know, that they are free, they are independend from any tirany.... Have own free will, that is the important thing. So stop worrying so much about the problems in which every system until now had.... FOCUS on the future ones, and don't focus only on the problems, but the way of which we could all live!

Thank you all...

dukes4monny

24th March 2011, 23:34

vive la différence

modwiz

25th March 2011, 00:44

Hawkwind

25th March 2011, 01:15

Chicodoodoo

25th March 2011, 02:08

dan i el

25th March 2011, 02:15

No, I am afraid we ourselves are sick and I don’t know if there is even a cure.

Maybe there is no known cure, but if we don't try to heal ourselves, nobody else will, and we will surely succumb. The Declaration is not what will banish this disease from our midst. But the idea behind it is the medicine we need. If we unite, if we organize, if we try, maybe we can cure our disease. Maybe the cure is just waiting to be discovered, and all we have to do is look.

What alternative do we have?

You may well be right, but..

The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
--Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace

skippy

25th March 2011, 02:20

No, I am afraid we ourselves are sick and I don’t know if there is even a cure.

Maybe there is no known cure, but if we don't try to heal ourselves, nobody else will, and we will surely succumb. The Declaration is not what will banish this disease from our midst. But the idea behind it is the medicine we need. If we unite, if we organize, if we try, maybe we can cure our disease. Maybe the cure is just waiting to be discovered, and all we have to do is look.

What alternative do we have?

I'm afraid that there's no other alternative then to get conscience about the true human condition. Or, as stated by Chico, the enemy is us. From this mess-up we might be able, perhaps, with the right intentions, to create something new.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?14977-Origin-of-all-coming-evil

king anthony

25th March 2011, 02:21

What alternative do we have?

How about everyone 'here' meets in a baseball field, with the biggest stick they can find; the last one standing leads all, who are injured, to a better tomorrow.

;)

BowMan

25th March 2011, 02:23

Can I bring a cricket bat instead?

Icecold

25th March 2011, 02:51

Perhaps we should put the children in charge.........?

Have you noticed that this has already occurred?

When 'experts' are interviewed in the media, they are invariably 'young people fresh out of university'.

The tribal system of elders, which worked so well for thousands of years has been supplanted by a system
of 'expert' 'unwise babies' telling us how it is.

king anthony

25th March 2011, 02:56

Perhaps we should put the children in charge.........?

...tribal system of elders, which worked so well for thousands of years has been supplanted by a system of 'expert' 'unwise babies' telling us how it is.

Well said.

Chicodoodoo

25th March 2011, 03:06

The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
--Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace

Good thing I've investigated the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of our phenomena (and I'm still doing it), so I think we're covered. It's also reassuring to know that I've not snatched at the first either, but designed something never tried before.

dan i el

25th March 2011, 03:11

Icecold

25th March 2011, 03:16

what about the issue of "leadership"?

Somehow the prospects of humans being led by a Committee …. to me smacks of some wacked played out socialistic/communistic nightmare.

Well said Ahkenaten.

I love the question. It’s very pertinent. I don’t see you “exuding” negativity here at all. I see you exuding the reality of our situation.

A great leader is an uplifting thing, without a doubt. A bad leader is a crippling thing, without a doubt. We’ve had our share of both, mostly the latter. What has never been tried, as far as I know, is for us as a group to lead ourselves. At the group level, we have always been stuck in the “need a leader” paradigm. Why? At the family level, as fathers and mothers, are we afraid to lead? Of course not! We lead because we want what is best for our family. Why is it any different at the species level? Why can we not unite as a species and work for what is best for our “family”, not only the family of man, but the family of life?

An american Indian talking about tribal leadership.....

The white world puts all the power at the top...When your people [Europeans] first came to our land they were trying to get away from those people at the top. But they still thought the same, and soon there were new people at the top in the new country. It is just the way you were taught to think...When you came among us, you couldn't understand our way. You wanted to find the person at the top. You wanted to find the fences that bound us in - how far our land went, how far our government went. Your world was made of cages and you thought ours was, too. Even though you hated your cages you believed in them. They defined your world and you needed them to define ours (Nerburn, 1994, p. 135).

The consensus/committee model has been used very effectively against us for some time.

Yes, but the consensus model has never been used effectively FOR us! I believe it can be, and that’s what I think we should consider pursuing. If we unite, and if we can structure an effective consensus model, I think our future will finally be in our own hands. The technology to do it is finally available. The incentive to do it is finally available (we are rapidly approaching “do or die”). We just need to do it.

One last point about leaders. Imagine you are the ideal leader, and people rally behind you because you inspire them to greatness. What will the organized sociopaths that oppose your movement do? They will take you out. Without you, the people are now lost. But what if the people lead themselves. What can the sociopaths do now? Their choice is to either take out all the people, or join the movement.

The idea of leadership expressed on this thread is fundamentally a 'white man's' view of leadership.

The following highlights of some of the main features of traditional American Indian leadership:

Spirituality was a core element of American Indian life and all leadership possessed spiritual significance.

Leaders demonstrated generosity and kindness, and honored all living things.
Elders cultivated the leadership of future generations.

American Indian leaders were humble servants to the community. Individuals did not seek leadership.

Leaders emerged from their contributions to the community and the people recognized and selected those considered most able to lead.

No one person was always a leader and many were leaders at different times.

The community could cease to recognize leaders by simply choosing to not follow him or her.

American Indian leaders led by example rather than by authority or command.
American Indian leaders took their time when making a decision. When they gave their word on a decision it was a final, binding pledge.

When tribal leaders met to deliberate on a matter they sought understanding and consensus through mutual inquiry.

There was no debate.

American Indian methods of resolving social conflict were based on the concept of restitution that focused on restoring respectful personal and social relations.

Discard your western ideas of leadership and look to a spiritual tribal system.

Look at the film "The Green Beautiful".

A leader should not be there to lead the group and manage it like a flock of sheep.

A leader should be apart from the group.

Someone who is approached for their thought and wisdom, and then they move away from the process.

They have no authoritarian role other than wisdom, spiritual insight and a great thought of care for their brothers and sisters.

Chicodoodoo

25th March 2011, 03:35

The idea of leadership expressed on this thread is fundamentally a 'white man's' view of leadership.

No surprise there. The white man's form of leadership dominates the globe. The Native American's form of leadership was obliterated. That's the whole problem, and that's what we're trying to change.

Ahkenaten

25th March 2011, 04:35

Post #149 by Chicodoodoo had a really intriguing conceptual model, that of the multi-celled organism. As we know in our own bodies though there are specialized cells that perform various functions they all developed out of the basic zygote or first cell and so on a fundamental level they are the same and all work together. As for my dilemma about leadership it occurred to me, using that model, that although there are brain cells that normally we think of as "ruling" the body and its activities, in reality the parts of the body actually can be experienced, to some extent, as "interchangeable" - for example people that sense color by feeling it through their skin, people that "see" music, etc. And so I am satisfied that there may be a way to envision a group of humans acting in a meaningful way in a group that challenges the traditional social models, and moves the ball forward.......................

Again using the flock of birds as the "F Sharp"...................

One mind, One heart.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Perhaps we should put the children in charge.........?

Have you noticed that this has already occurred?

When 'experts' are interviewed in the media, they are invariably 'young people fresh out of university'.

The tribal system of elders, which worked so well for thousands of years has been supplanted by a system
of 'expert' 'unwise babies' telling us how it is.

Here here Icecold unwise ignorant little brats I would say

Ahkenaten

25th March 2011, 04:44

OK jellyfish are actually colonies of individual cells that "agree" to live and work together - it is an interesting model.......I find it is always helpful to come up with visual examples even if they are metaphors, when trying to break barriers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzk3nBGEAvU

Bollinger

25th March 2011, 06:48

No, I am afraid we ourselves are sick and I don’t know if there is even a cure.

So, even though our proverbial house is on fire and the people who were supposedly hired to bring fire hoses are instead pouring gasoline on the flames, we should just chalk it up to human nature and grab some marshmallows. I'm sorry, I think we can do better than that, and I sure as hell think we should at least try.

To whom are you referring when you say “the people who were supposedly hired to bring fire hoses”? No one was hired or appointed to do anything. Who are these "people” we constantly blame and say we need to “deal with”?

You are assuming the planet is an open society where “outsiders” come and go as they please and wreak havoc upon us without a care in the world. I say this is a closed society where everything that happens is because of the way we are. It is very easy to think oneself righteous when living under tyranny. If the shoe were on the other foot, i.e. you found yourself to be among the repressors, how willing would you be to forgo all your good fortune and rebel against the hand that feeds your habit?

None of us really know the size of the monster within each of us until the opportunity arises for it to come out. All this “blaming” is just a way of letting off steam, which is understandable but really the first step is to recognise where the fault lies and I’m sorry to say the problem is often closer to home than you imagine.

For millennia people have said the same things as you are saying now. Let’s fight the evil rulers, let’s change the world, let’s repel the bad people; has it ever worked? What we find is that whoever repels the present rulers, replaces them with another set of rulers who themselves end up being just as corrupt and crooked as the previous lot. This is a vicious circle and so far we have not been able to escape its clutches.

If it’s change you want, we must all change at the same time. As long as there is even a minority who want to maintain the status quo (i.e. best of everything for the few and little for everyone else), it will remain so.

dukes4monny

25th March 2011, 08:02

Discard your western ideas of leadership and look to a spiritual tribal system.

Look at the film "The Green Beautiful".

A leader should not be there to lead the group and manage it like a flock of sheep.

A leader should be apart from the group.

Someone who is approached for their thought and wisdom, and then they move away from the process.

They have no authoritarian role other than wisdom, spiritual insight and a great thought of care for their brothers and sisters.

I think that you are on to something Icecold. My understanding is that the American Indians, together with most indigenous people, were 'lead' by their Shaman's. These Shaman's used various methods for contacting the 'spirit world' (their elders or Gaia?) to obtain guidance.
The methods used for making contact with their elders was either through prolonged rhythmic dancing or the use of hallucinogenic drugs or both.
History tells us that in the Western world we had the 'Burning of the Witches' which was essentially the eradication of our Shamans by the then Christian 'leaders'.
Maybe we need to find our modern day Shamans and listen to what they have to say? I have always thought of Terrence Mckenna as a Shamanic individual, it's a real shame he's no longer (physically) with us. The following short clip says soooo much about our predicament:

iYB0VW5x8fI

'The Genesis Generation' (http://www.genesisgeneration.us/) is an interesting audio book by Lorenzo Hagerty which gives a very modern twist to the 'Tribal' idea.

If you haven't yet seen it, I can also recommend watching the 2004 film 'Blueberry' (http://two-movies.com/watch_movie/Blueberry) (Also strangely titled 'Renegade') which has an interesting storyline.
Note: I have added the hyperlink for illustration purposes, I'm not suggesting to use that site...........I found it via a Torrent download ;)

So where are our Shaman's? Are they already here in Avalon?

Maria Stade

25th March 2011, 10:35

Ahkenaten
Again using the flock of birds as the "F Sharp"...................

One mind, One heart.

http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy77/Vitabuffeln/Hjrta11.jpg

Maria Stade

25th March 2011, 10:56

Leaders are natural.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfvUA2vRAM&playnext=1&list=PL1701A6C0E90017F0

jorr lundstrom

25th March 2011, 11:14

First I would like to discuss the word concensus. Concensus is when a group has

come to a conclusion that everyone in the group can support. The discussions proceed

until that is the case. It means that everyone have not got exactly as they wanted, but

everyone agree on that its good enough. You can never measure consensus with a poll

with two parameters. This shows the will of the majority, which means that the minority

and probably some of the yeah- sayers will pull in another direction than the yeah- sayers.

Im convinced that many of the yeah-sayers voted before they had read the thread or even

thought about wot the different statements in the declaration meant or their consequenses.

Humanity is bleeding from different wounds, some of them severe infected. The poll is in my opinion

putting pieces of plaster on the wounds instead of examine the wounds to find out wot can be done.

Plasters are the last you put on.

About Icecolds brats I would like to say that this is a misconception that is common today. I call them

the button-pushers generation. Young and even people in the midde ages that think that everything

can and should be handled by pushing a button on a computor. People that has has been taught

practical helplessness. People who hardly can knit their own shoes and think they are in the positon

to teach others how everything should be handled, when they in fact have no clue.

Icecold:

Discard your western ideas of leadership and look to a spiritual tribal system.

Look at the film "The Green Beautiful".

A leader should not be there to lead the group and manage it like a flock of sheep.

A leader should be apart from the group.

Someone who is approached for their thought and wisdom, and then they move away from the process.

They have no authoritarian role other than wisdom, spiritual insight and a great thought of care for their brothers and sisters.

Im convinced that the tribe is the future of humanity. It ha so many advantages and so few disadvantages.

But depending on the circumstances regarding food and other necessary items it takes totally

different approaches to the way of leading.

dukes4monny: So where are our Shaman's? Are they already here in Avalon?

Here are definitely some with schamanic skills on PA. But no one is a schaman alone.

A schaman is always in relation to a tribe or corresponding. Being a schaman is a mutual

agreement. Its never a self-selected task. :ranger:

Hawkwind

25th March 2011, 12:01

Chicodoodoo

25th March 2011, 18:14

Im convinced that the tribe is the future of humanity. It has so many advantages and so few disadvantages.

This is exactly the direction the Declaration is pointing to -- a united tribe of humanity. I'm surprised you find so much fault with it. All it attempts to do is provide the foundation for that unification.

How would you proceed?

modwiz

25th March 2011, 18:28

Does anyone remember a member named Charles/Atticus?

Not too long ago he had a request thread that, roughly in the middle of which, he had a request for us Avalonians.

It was to help him in a plan he had to effect some change in the system that abuses us all. His plan had as a seed concept a think tank of sorts composed of 18 people. He asked this community to nominate other members, or themselves, to represent the interests of us all to begin a process. This would lead to greater numbers of participants as things developed.

Out of the hundreds of posts after this request I think no more than a dozen people actually nominated other Avalonians or themselves.

The rest debated the merits of the plan and also put forth their own plans for their idea of a better world. In other words almost everyone lost focus and did not respond to the request from someone who just might be in a position to do something other than complain and dream.

That is why when Jorr asked if this was a joke, I replied in the affirmative while allowing for the good intentions of the efforts. The reason I voted yes in the poll.

We have met the enemy and it is...........

jorr lundstrom

25th March 2011, 18:37

Cutting through the mist of Alzheimer light, I do remember.:typing:

Chicodoodoo

25th March 2011, 21:23

Does anyone remember a member named Charles/Atticus?

It should also be noted that nothing concrete or even loosely articulated ever came out of the Atticus spectacle. I don't know how many times I searched for and asked for clarification, but it was clear that no clarification could be had because nobody had any idea what Atticus was talking about. It was so vague that people were left to fill in the blanks, and everyone filled in those blanks differently.

Ahkenaten

25th March 2011, 21:54

I know this might sound a bit woo-woo but could I make a request that any declaration include a statement something to the effect that "We will no longer be brought into battles between forces that have been battling for perhaps thousands of years, nor will we willingly assent to our lives and energies being expropriated or otherwise mined by these entities." ?

The reason I ask this is that I am becoming more convinced as time goes on that the wars and battles we see are but surface manifestations of a deeper struggle occurring on other planes, at other levels. Some have suggested that for some reason that is not fully understood, humans are a prize or somehow part of the struggle. That would answer questions concerning the apparent need for continual blood sacrifices on ritual holidays. Even if most humans living today are the product of genetic engineering in our distant past, and thus related to the warring factions - that does not give them the right to control our social, economic and political activities, demand blood sacrifices of us on dates cherished by them, demand our continued enslavement to energize and enrich them, nor does it entitle them to impose a black-out on us, thereby depriving us of our sovereignty AND, more importantly, complete awareness of our history and who and what we are. We must declare our independence from these warring forces for once and for all - we must not permit them any longer to use our lives and energy in a proxy war amongst relatives celestial or otherwise.

As Richard Hoagland put it recently, and he was quoting from some book written in the 1930's - "we are someone's property." I say we must declare our independence for once and for all.
If they want to war amongst themselves, let them do it - WITHOUT OUR ENERGY, SUPPORT, BODIES OR MINDS!

Bollinger

25th March 2011, 22:31

To whom are you referring when you say “the people who were supposedly hired to bring fire hoses”? No one was hired or appointed to do anything.

The stated purpose of any government is to serve the welfare of the governed, and every elected official makes endless promises to do just that. Maybe 1% of our current "leaders" actually enter office with an intent to serve the people, and maybe 1% of those actually succeed in that endeavor without being corrupted or eaten alive by the servants of Mammon…

I see. The people you are referring to are those in government and your assertion is that the method of selecting our leaders is flawed. This is such a huge topic, it is hard to determine where to start.

Let me put it in these terms. We humans are very peculiar creatures. I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that we simply cannot be satisfied indefinitely with any set of circumstances. That is my contention. Yes there are many things wrong on this planet but there are many things wrong with us internally as well. We aspire to spiritual enlightenment (whatever that means) because we believe it to be the highest form of existence possible.

Why do we do that? Why do we always desire the highest, the best, the most, the ultimate, the limitless and any other superlative you can think of? It is because we know deep down that anything less would leave us in a state of want for we haven’t managed to attain the best of whatever it is we are after or think we deserve.

The status of any human life here on this planet is defined by what we haven’t done and haven’t attained rather than what we have managed to achieve. The other thing that is wrong with us is the insatiable drive to find reasons and solutions for this lack. We each of us do it without even realising it, day in day out. Going to work, earning money to pay off debt or buy that nice car. Frequenting bars and places of entertainment to find love and relationships; going on forums like this one in the hope of adding some value and purpose to one’s own existence as well as others.

Yes, it sounds rather negative and somewhat acquiescent but I sometimes think we are trying to fix something that is meant to be broken. I wish it were otherwise but what if there really is no cure? What if this is the only fruit that this particular existence yields? Does it make any sense to keep pleading with a fig tree to grow oranges? It’s simply a viewpoint that I think merits at least some consideration.

The underlying theme that seems to run through most people's aspirations (including those on this forum) goes something like this. If we do a, b and c we may achieve x, y and z. In other words, we labour under the assumption that there has to be something better than what we currently have, if only we could bring it into reality. That word “better”, is so consequential and yet at the same time, so utterly absurd. It is a concept that can only be resolved at infinity. My point is that there is always a better future, a better way to live, better way to elect leaders, a better way to govern.

We are faced with a colossal conundrum. On the one hand we want to improve things but on the other, we know we are never going to be satisfied. What do we do? What possible stance can we take to resolve this horrible dilemma?

That is the question with which we are given leave to enter and for a while, remain on this world. We arrive here with an unsolvable puzzle made to look like there is a solution. Perhaps, on the way out, someone might hand us a piece of paper with the answer on it and we might either be pleasantly surprised or furious with ourselves for having spent so much energy on such a futile exercise.

Chicodoodoo

26th March 2011, 03:58

Yes there are many things wrong on this planet but there are many things wrong with us internally as well.

I don’t think you are viewing the world situation correctly, Bollinger. There’s nothing seriously wrong with our planet or with us when things are in balance. The problem is that things aren’t balanced.

Why do we always desire the highest, the best, the most, the ultimate, the limitless and any other superlative you can think of?

Most people are not like this at all. They just want a basic level of comfort, and that’s all. Call it the middle class syndrome, if you wish. Unfortunately, things have gotten so unbalanced that the middle class is trending towards poverty. What we are witnessing in our world is that things are getting worse, and this trend is accelerating. Humanity is becoming more and more unbalanced, and as a result of our influence on the entire world, the planet itself is becoming unbalanced.

The status of any human life here on this planet is defined by what we haven’t done and haven’t attained rather than what we have managed to achieve.

That’s a rather unbalanced view of things, wouldn’t you say? It’s very one-sided. We also measure things by what we have achieved. I don’t think you will need evidence for this.

I sometimes think we are trying to fix something that is meant to be broken.

We’re trying to fix something that was much less broken in the past than it is now. Things are getting worse, but we want things to get better. In other words, in terms of the general trend, we are going in the wrong direction. That’s what we need to correct.

On the one hand we want to improve things but on the other, we know we are never going to be satisfied. What do we do?

We improve things. Whether we are ever completely satisfied is not the point. The point is that we aren’t improving things. We’re making them worse, because we are being led to make them worse. Who is leading us? Highly organized sociopaths. How do they do it? With subtle but pervasive deception. How do we correct this? Unite and organize so that we lead ourselves.

dukes4monny

26th March 2011, 06:45

That is the question with which we are given leave to enter and for a while, remain on this world. We arrive here with an unsolvable puzzle made to look like there is a solution. Perhaps, on the way out, someone might hand us a piece of paper with the answer on it and we might either be pleasantly surprised or furious with ourselves for having spent so much energy on such a futile exercise.

I understand your sentiments. We are indeed a strange species, and it does appear that we are somehow 'misplaced' by being on this planet in the first place.
I've often wondered........why are we called 'Human Beings'? I think that 'Humans Existing' is probably a more appropriate way of describing ourselves, certainly at the moment.
If we look at our fellow inhabitants on this planet, they don't have any issues about their identities. An elephant doesn't wake up in the morning and wonder why it is an Elephant, it just gets on with being an Elephant, doing what Elephants do.
I think that as a species, our problem is one of a lack of identity and the real puzzle that needs solving is 'What are we here to do?'
I do now think that in the past there were such creatures as 'Human Beings' on this planet, and that physically they were identical us, but they had learned how to live and work with nature.
So, what happened to change all of this? What happened to our Human identity? Has there been an 'outside' influence to upset this great 'experiment?' Who knows, I certainly don't.
All that I do know is that as guardians of this planet we are doing a sh*te job of it at the moment!

I think that the 'United People Declaration' should simply be: "We the people hereby solemnly swear to give up our material goods and possessions, and to work together to undo the mess that we have made on planet earth".

I know that I am prepared to do that.........

I would just like to personally thank Chicodoodoo for both starting this very interesting thread, and for very patiently steering it along. I'm not sure if it's actually gone in the direction that you originally intended, but its certainly got a lot of people 'thinking'..me included!

Hawkwind

26th March 2011, 15:11

What if this is the only fruit that this particular existence yields?
The air and water were cleaner 20 years ago than they are now, and infinitely cleaner 200 years ago. Clean air and water seem to me better than polluted versions thereof. So, I submit to you that it appears this existence is capable of producing either good fruit or bad. I believe each of us is capable of cultivating one or the other both internally and externally. I choose to put my time and energy into cultivating both the best internal and the external world that I can. If you're satisfied with the conditions of your internal and external worlds, then enjoy your complacency. I'm not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlyEwcplCD4

We are faced with a colossal conundrum. On the one hand we want to improve things but on the other, we know we are never going to be satisfied. What do we do? What possible stance can we take to resolve this horrible dilemma?

You're free to do whatever you like, including nothing at all. I will do the best I can (whatever I currently perceive that to be) with every breath I take and every once of courage I can muster. I don't view that as a "horrible dilemma", but as an infinitely beautiful gift.

Perhaps, on the way out, someone might hand us a piece of paper with the answer on it and we might either be pleasantly surprised or furious with ourselves for having spent so much energy on such a futile exercise.
Regardless of what may be written on any piece of paper on the way out, the only regrets I will have are the times when I failed to try to do my best.

Mad Hatter

26th March 2011, 15:39

Well some 187 posts later I must thank you all for an intriguing discussion. I can understand those who voted yes due to the sentiment and maybe frustration leading to the call for action resulting in the declaration. (lol regarding the 'charles' observation) I also very much understand the logical reasoning used by those voting no.

Out of respect for what is being attempted however I choose not to vote. To paraphrase it's inventor, democracy is a crappy solution but it's better than the others. Interesting to note is that in 2000 years mankind has failed to come up with anything better. The expression 'A conclusion is where you got tired of thinking' springs to mind.

Now donning my devils advocate hat...In light of that this thread seems to be an attempt to come up with something better than 'demockery' otherwise best described as mob rule. To satisfy my anarchistic tendencies any proposed solution will need to be way better than the current paradigm.

If I take the we are all one argument then there is a bucket load of me I'm not too fond of to say the least!! On the other hand from the infinite consciousness co creating reality paradigm has it occurred to anyone that as a single eternal entity (insert favourite deity/expression here) that it is bored out of it's infinite mind and thus in generating this space we are in, it needs the best of the best to answer the question by what process can it successfully get along with itself before generating another infinite reality so it's no longer lonely... (sorry OT rambling)

In order not to appear completely negative I propose a test for the 'Declaration' hypothesis. This would need the assistance of those with computer coding and game theory skills. I assume most have heard of the online gaming phenomenon 'Second Life' or Sim City... Could not that concept be applied here?? In other words build a game that is based on parameters dictated by the 'Declaration'. (could even call it Avalon)

Being an online opt in format it would be a way of introducing people to ways of living within the proposed paradigm which allows tweaking of the social contract to optimise outcomes and be a glaring example of what we could all manage if we chose to commit to such a path!!

Mad Hatter climbs down of soap box and removes various hats...

Bollinger

26th March 2011, 17:19

I don’t think you are viewing the world situation correctly, Bollinger. There’s nothing seriously wrong with our planet or with us when things are in balance. The problem is that things aren’t balanced.

…Unfortunately, things have gotten so unbalanced that the middle class is trending towards poverty. What we are witnessing in our world is that things are getting worse, and this trend is accelerating. Humanity is becoming more and more unbalanced, and as a result of our influence on the entire world, the planet itself is becoming unbalanced.

…

We’re trying to fix something that was much less broken in the past than it is now. Things are getting worse, but we want things to get better. In other words, in terms of the general trend, we are going in the wrong direction. That’s what we need to correct.

…

The point is that we aren’t improving things. We’re making them worse, because we are being led to make them worse. Who is leading us? Highly organized sociopaths. How do they do it? With subtle but pervasive deception. How do we correct this? Unite and organize so that we lead ourselves.

I of course fully appreciate and second all that lies behind the motive for what is being said or implied. However, every serious discussion has to have some specifics on which to focus otherwise we just get lost in the vastness of the subject.

You say “things aren’t balanced” and by implication that is the root of the problem. What do you mean by that? How do you define the concept or state of being balanced? Is it the distribution of wealth? Is it the distribution of physical or intellectual ability? Is it confined to those things designed by man or nature or both?

Let’s look at nature itself. You may hold the view that it is an example of something that is balanced. I would say that it is nothing of the sort. If by balanced you mean every animal always has equal opportunity, status and access to food, nothing could be further from the truth. The proof is the steady turnover of species becoming extinct long before and since mankind turned up. The same also goes for many species of vegetation.

If that is the case, by what curious logic, reason or authority do we expect and even demand such a thing as balance? You see my point. Is this not the height of human arrogance rearing its ugly head and proclaiming I deserve better because I am special. Each one of us suffers from an incurable superiority complex simply because we are endowed with the ability to think. Maybe there is a case for saying we are misplaced here, as Dukesformonny puts it.

You say that we should improve things. Examine for a minute your motive for saying that. I would venture that it is a certain quality called “empathy” that is speaking which can see a lot of problems in the world, not least of all, this imbalance that we’ve been talking about. Next you wonder how things may be improved. You make declarations, form organisations, appoint leaders, create charities, build websites and write on forums like this; all in the hope that it might do something to address the problem. But then you realise people have been doing this type of thing for millennia and we are still experiencing imbalance. It has the hallmark of a sadistic game which cannot be won. Many come, many play and most leave in tears and bitter disappointment with the whole thing.

The ego is always eager to blame someone because then the solution becomes obvious. They must be removed from power. Perhaps there are these “highly organised sociopaths” who are orchestrating things to achieve some end but that idea cannot be held with any real conviction because its existence rests not on concrete and indisputable proof but a lot of circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

It’s not until you stop for a minute, take a step back from it and realise how utterly meaningless and futile life really is. Just think about this idea for example: there are 7 billion egos all wanting the same thing (happiness, in case you’re wondering) in an environment where it is virtually impossible to attain and keep it for any reasonable length of time. Even if you did attain it, you’d be worried about the day when it will surely come to a natural end.

Now, in true Hollywood tradition, I must end on a happier note otherwise I will flop at the box office and ripe tomatoes will be hurled in my direction, if they aren’t already on their way from my last post.

Perhaps if we knew with certainty the answers to the three big questions: where we came from, why we are here and where we are going; we wouldn’t worry so much about what is happening in the world during the time we happen to be here. As long as this information is kept from us, we have license to think and act in any way we please but we should observe and keep sacred just one simple rule; that we refrain from doing harm either to ourselves or others. If we can manage that, I’d say our problems are over; failing that, welcome to Earth.

Bollinger

26th March 2011, 17:50

The air and water were cleaner 20 years ago than they are now, and infinitely cleaner 200 years ago. Clean air and water seem to me better than polluted versions thereof. So, I submit to you that it appears this existence is capable of producing either good fruit or bad. I believe each of us is capable of cultivating one or the other both internally and externally. I choose to put my time and energy into cultivating both the best internal and the external world that I can. If you're satisfied with the conditions of your internal and external worlds, then enjoy your complacency. I'm not.

You're free to do whatever you like, including nothing at all. I will do the best I can (whatever I currently perceive that to be) with every breath I take and every once of courage I can muster. I don't view that as a "horrible dilemma", but as an infinitely beautiful gift.

… the only regrets I will have are the times when I failed to try to do my best.

I think that it’s simply a question of perception. There are three kinds. You prefer to look at it from the point of view that the glass is half-full (i.e. you believe in the possibility that we can influence the rules of the game), whereas others may view it as half-empty (i.e. there is no hope and we are all doomed).

The third kind, which I perceive myself to advocate, is to view it as just a glass of water without wishing to place too much importance on how much liquid it happens to contain.

Hawkwind

26th March 2011, 20:02

I think that it’s simply a question of perception. There are three kinds. You prefer to look at it from the point of view that the glass is half-full (i.e. you believe in the possibility that we can influence the rules of the game), whereas others may view it as half-empty (i.e. there is no hope and we are all doomed).

The third kind, which I perceive myself to advocate, is to view it as just a glass of water without wishing to place too much importance on how much liquid it happens to contain.

Actually, there are at least four ways of looking at the glass.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn111/Mjr_gamer/Larson.jpg

As I said, if you're satisfied with the way things are, then there is nothing you need do. That would include, however, there being no need to attempt to discourage and dissuade those of us who would like to see things change.

Chicodoodoo

26th March 2011, 20:48

dukes4monny

26th March 2011, 21:03

I find the '100th Monkey' principle (http://www.worldtrans.org/pos/monkey.html) intriguing.
Does anyone know if there have been any published studies of this occurring in Humans?
If enough of us start actually making the change we want to see, could we get to a 'critical mass' and everyone just starts doing it?

I am probably going a bit OT with this next bit........but maybe not?
I have often wondered what sort of alchemy keeps us acting like slaves?
Nobody seems to (apart from me) question the rigid structure given to us in the days of the week.
Setting aside all of the philosophical arguments that tomorrow never comes, looked at in an abstract way, they do have a very big influence on our lives without us questioning it. On a Friday we are thinking about what we are going to do at the weekend (our free time ;o) and we get to Monday and the gloom sets in as we go back to our labours.
What happens when we go on holiday, yes I know we have a good time, but we (perhaps I should say I) forget what day of the week it is. Anyone up for starting a new type of week?
Well, that's my totally random thought for this Saturday evening, I'm going to have a lie down now :der:

Chicodoodoo

26th March 2011, 21:24

You say “things aren’t balanced” and by implication that is the root of the problem. What do you mean by that? How do you define the concept or state of being balanced? Is it the distribution of wealth? Is it the distribution of physical or intellectual ability? Is it confined to those things designed by man or nature or both?

Good questions. Let's say things are balanced when they aren't getting better or worse. So there are three states -- getting worse, no change, and getting better. For a very long time, we've been unbalanced on the "getting worse" side. We need to be unbalanced on the "getting better" side for a while. And then at some point, we need to settle in to a "no change" state of equilibrium. Nature does this all the time. Changes perturb it, things get worse, but over time it gets better and eventually settles into a balance point.

Each one of us suffers from an incurable superiority complex simply because we are endowed with the ability to think.

We are not special. All animals think. ETs may be proof that there are animals that think better than we do. I suspect there are animals on our planet that think better than we do, but we are too self-absorbed to see it.

You say that we should improve things. ...people have been doing this type of thing for millennia and we are still experiencing imbalance. It has the hallmark of a sadistic game which cannot be won.

The game has been won many times. There have probably been many periods of human balance in many parts of the world, all of it unknown to us. It is lost in unrecorded history.

Perhaps there are these “highly organised sociopaths” who are orchestrating things to achieve some end but that idea cannot be held with any real conviction because its existence rests not on concrete and indisputable proof but a lot of circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

Not true. We are simply neophytes in this area of study, because it is actively suppressed. Check out "Political Ponerology (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Ponerology-Science-Adjusted-Purposes/dp/1897244258)" by Andrzej M. Lobaczewski.

It’s not until you stop for a minute, take a step back from it and realise how utterly meaningless and futile life really is.

Wrong. The purpose of life is to exist. It does that brilliantly. The quality of that life is an open subject, and that is within our hands to change, for better or for worse.

Chicodoodoo

26th March 2011, 21:46

I have often wondered what sort of alchemy keeps us acting like slaves? Nobody seems to (apart from me) question the rigid structure given to us in the days of the week.

You are not alone, there just aren't a lot of us that have the luxury to think about our situation, and that is very much by the design of the slave masters.

I have often considered the same thing, and my behavior has changed as a result. I am at the point where the date, the day of the week, and the time have little meaning to me personally. I am more and more in the "now", in the present moment. I care almost nothing about the date or time. I almost never think about it.

That does cause me some problems with the "civilized" world, needless to say, and that's the only reason I ever think about date and time, when I do.

Well, that's my totally random thought for this Saturday evening, I'm going to have a lie down now :der:

Great thought! Thanks for sharing. Rest well. You've earned it.

skippy

26th March 2011, 23:16

Out of respect for what is being attempted however I choose not to vote. To paraphrase it's inventor, democracy is a crappy solution but it's better than the others. Interesting to note is that in 2000 years mankind has failed to come up with anything better. The expression 'A conclusion is where you got tired of thinking' springs to mind.

A conclusion can also be where you succeeded in thinking. Democracy is the right solution, but in 2000 years, it has hardly ever been practiced, and when it has been practiced, it used a faulty set of rules. Democracy has yet to be done correctly, and that's what I want to see changed.

About this subject, there was a wonderfull contribution by OmeyocaN777 on the United People an Alternative World Order thread. Here are some of its contents:

This model(or any model) to succeed must work on level of:
UNITY(all in/for ONE)
SACRIFICE/LOVE(the biggest virtue is sacrifice - everyday cells in our body sacrifice for the best of all)
COOPERATION/EXCHANGE(the different parts of a system must have "bridges"/connections to be alive and positive)/(True Education and Knowledge must be FREE for everybody)
LEARN/EXPAND(Knowledge is infinite.....)
JOY/HAPPINESS(without joy, we are not creative.....)
DESTINY(the ultimate goal is to be creators like our "Father/Mother" - Let's create something beautiful.......)

(The above are just some ideas how the systems must "work".)

So again, is not the system that matters but the intention.
For example let's take a look what really Democracy is:

"Άριστη δημοκρατία είναι εκείνη που δεν έχει ούτε πάρα πολύ πλούσιους ούτε πάρα πολύ φτωχούς πολίτες."
"Perfect democracy is that system,that it haven't neither too rich or too poor citizens."
Thales of Miletus

The word Democracy means:
ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ - ΔΗΜΟΣ+ΚΡΑΤΩ
DEMOCRACY - PEOPLE+POWER

You can understand that today we don't really have Democracy because our intentions are Wrong.......many people are still "sleeping".
If we want to bring Heaven on Earth, we must first wake people up........

Mad Hatter

27th March 2011, 02:38

Democracy is the right solution, but in 2000 years, it has hardly ever been practiced, and when it has been practiced, it used a faulty set of rules. Democracy has yet to be done correctly, and that's what I want to see changed.

I agree that it has rarely (if ever) been practiced as originally proposed. To that end, ever since the dawn of the personal computer age , I have always thought that would be the ideal tool to make the political class redundant(still do). Unfortunately PCs and web access are not yet available to every denizen of planet earth. South Korea might be able to try it since they actually have connected every dwelling with fiber optic cable.

However this would still only be worlds best practice at what is effectively mob rule.

I would be interested in which rule set you propose that deals with say the following issue just as an example... 95% of the vote says nukes are the go for supplying energy yet 5% of the vote says zero point is the way forward.

Will you be supplying another earth for the 5%ers or will they be open to collecting compensation after every nuclear incident or just entitled to say we told you so?? The anarchist in me would suggest that you cannot move forward on the issue until you have a 100% endorsement one way or the other.

To even dream of getting there a massive effort is required to get everyone clothed sheltered fed and adequately educated(not headucated). All easily do-able in todays world providing the political will to do so can be found. Perhaps the solution is if we bypass the political process on these issues and personally make every effort to see that this is done anyway. At a minimum the I think the world would end up a happier and potentially safer place.

I do however note it is extremely egotistical of me to suggest there is anything wrong with the world to start with since there is no right or wrong except that thinking makes it so....

Hawkwind

27th March 2011, 03:21

I do however note it is extremely egotistical of me to suggest there is anything wrong with the world to start with since there is no right or wrong except that thinking makes it so....

Healthy and unhealthy, however, can be quantified objectively. Humanity and the planet are both exhibiting symptoms of extreme illness. The causes for which can, in large part, be traced back to the sociopathic mismanagement of human social systems.

Chicodoodoo

27th March 2011, 04:58

However this would still only be worlds best practice at what is effectively mob rule.

I disagree. It is unfair to claim mob rule when 98% want a world run by caring non-sociopaths, while the sociopaths that make up the other 2% overrule by their dissent.

I would be interested in which rule set you propose that deals with say the following issue just as an example... 95% of the vote says nukes are the go for supplying energy yet 5% of the vote says zero point is the way forward.

Wrong kind of question, since both can be pursued, i.e. they are not mutually exclusive. We have to have guidelines on what kinds of questions we address. We also have to prioritize them. Taking care of the most basic needs of the people must be addressed first.

I do however note it is extremely egotistical of me to suggest there is anything wrong with the world to start with since there is no right or wrong except that thinking makes it so....

Again, I disagree. Man is a thinking animal, and that brings the question of right and wrong not only into existence, but to the forefront. There's a reason why we have judgment, and except for survival, that's probably the biggest reason.

Mad Hatter

27th March 2011, 05:44

G'day Hawkwind,

Healthy and unhealthy, however, can be quantified objectively. Humanity and the planet are both exhibiting symptoms of extreme illness. The causes for which can, in large part, be traced back to the sociopathic mismanagement of human social systems.

I couldn't agree more. My problem, as a left left brain type trying to develop more right brained skills is working out if it's my own ego or intuition or a combination of both that leads me to that conclusion. Either way the evidence of there being a problem is pretty conclusive!! I enjoy puzzles and this one seems to be the mother of them all. Therefore while awaiting the oft mooted ascension stuff to maybe do it's thing, in the meantime I wonder about practical solutions for the here and now.

eg Would it be possible to use MRI technology to test for the sociopathic condition and prevent those with that illness(?) from holding positions of power / leadership and could such a course of action be introduced by something like a citizens initiated referenda??

Should such a test for future leaders (if any) not be part of the declaration / social contract.

Just more grist for the mill I suppose....

cheers

Bollinger

27th March 2011, 08:10

Let's say things are balanced when they aren't getting better or worse. So there are three states -- getting worse, no change, and getting better. For a very long time, we've been unbalanced on the "getting worse" side. We need to be unbalanced on the "getting better" side for a while. And then at some point, we need to settle in to a "no change" state of equilibrium. Nature does this all the time. Changes perturb it, things get worse, but over time it gets better and eventually settles into a balance point.

That doesn’t really answer what you mean by “balanced”. It's just more generalities such as “things getting better or worse”. What things? I find this entire paragraph somewhat impotent because it suffers from the same problem as a lot of your other comments; namely that you state things which have no real meaning. The worst offending sentences are in red.

I invited you in my last post to explain what you mean by balance and gave a few examples of it (for instance, distribution of wealth) to see if that’s what you meant but you do not give any specifics, you just keep using words at such a level that they have no meaning. The word “balance” doesn’t add anything in this context because we don’t know what exactly you mean by it; the word “equilibrium” suffers from the same problem.

We are not special. All animals think. ETs may be proof that there are animals that think better than we do. I suspect there are animals on our planet that think better than we do, but we are too self-absorbed to see it.

This is just a lot of assumptions piled on top of other assumptions but that aside, it doesn’t really contribute to your general argument and the subject of this thread. I used the animal kingdom in my post to illustrate that if balance means equality in status and access to food, it doesn’t exist in nature anyway with or without mankind.

The game has been won many times. There have probably been many periods of human balance in many parts of the world, all of it unknown to us. It is lost in unrecorded history.

What do you mean by game? You really cannot be serious when you say “there have probably been many periods of human balance” because again you are assuming A to advance another assumption B. You cannot do that.

The purpose of life is to exist. It does that brilliantly. The quality of that life is an open subject, and that is within our hands to change, for better or for worse.

You first sentence above is merely a tautology. You have to exist to have any purpose. It is like saying the purpose of computers is to run programs. It adds nothing to the discussion.

What do you mean “the quality of life is an open subject”? If it means we are all free to posit our opinions on it, fine, I agree. But what contribution does it make to this debate?

I’d like to just end by making a few observations. The problem I find with a lot of posts and comments is that beneath it all there seems to be this underlying idea that somehow all our troubles are instigated by some dark force sitting behind closed doors constantly planning and plotting our downfall. And so we can easily play the blame game and attribute all the world’s problems to this evil bunch of sociopaths who only think of themselves and use every means in their power to bring us suffering and discomfort.

Does that not strike you as somewhat convenient? We absolve ourselves of all responsibility simply by inventing the idea of “evil sociopaths” who can take the blame for all our ills and then we run around telling each other about it on YouTube and other websites. We let our imagination run away with our zest to find answers to genuine problems.

The simple fact is that there has never been a time on Earth where the kind of paradise that only exists in our heads can be cajoled into reality and no amount of wishing, hoping, praying or intending can change that. It is like hoping that one day 2 + 2 will equal 5. It won’t and it is folly to expect it because the rules of this existence or “game” do not allow it. Even if we had free energy, free food, perfect health and freedom to go anywhere any time, eventually we would be bored sick of it and would want to leave. That says a lot about us, the human species.

This world, however nice you think it is or it could be, is just not geared up to support life at a level that can satisfy everyone all the time. It doesn’t really matter if you solve this problem, there will always be the next problem. This is the reason why in my last post I proposed that life is meaningless and futile. How else could one describe it given all that we know about it?

But you will always have people who make wild assertions about one thing or another. For example some people think that just by intending something, you can make it real. And when you challenge them with a simple argument such as – if that is the case, why aren’t we all living in mansions and driving around in Ferraris – there’s no real answer. It’s just another religion.

David Icke talks about problem-reaction-solution. Well, I would say that we ourselves are doing exactly the same thing. We look at the world and we see all its problems. We are outraged by it and our reaction is to blame someone. Who can we blame? We invent dark shadowy people with evil intent. The solution is to remove them from power because they are deliberately creating imbalance.

Just let things be. No one is here forever; no one is forcing anyone to remain here indefinitely. Do not concern yourselves about the evil sociopaths; just concentrate on not becoming one yourself. If anyone purposefully harms you, they are harming themselves. If they destroy the world, what have you lost? If it’s real it doesn’t belong to you anyway; if it’s all an illusion, who cares what they do to it?

Yes life is hard, yes there is a lot of evil and injustice. Yes there is hardship and suffering but that has always been the case. It is hard not only to live in such a place but to know that others are living in it as well; often in conditions far worse than we can possibly imagine.

The earth has been around for 4 billion years. We’ve only just arrived in the last quarter of a million years and we’ll probably soon perish and start again; perhaps with a new set of circumstances and rules. Who knows? But the important point to note is that in the overall scheme of things, we (and that includes the evil sociopaths) are no more significant than a spec of dust floating around looking for a TV stand on which to settle. Someone or something will eventually come along and give it a good wipe.

dukes4monny

27th March 2011, 09:08

About this subject, there was a wonderfull contribution by OmeyocaN777 on the United People an Alternative World Order thread. Here are some of its contents:

This model(or any model) to succeed must work on level of:
UNITY(all in/for ONE)
SACRIFICE/LOVE(the biggest virtue is sacrifice - everyday cells in our body sacrifice for the best of all)
COOPERATION/EXCHANGE(the different parts of a system must have "bridges"/connections to be alive and positive)/(True Education and Knowledge must be FREE for everybody)
LEARN/EXPAND(Knowledge is infinite.....)
JOY/HAPPINESS(without joy, we are not creative.....)
DESTINY(the ultimate goal is to be creators like our "Father/Mother" - Let's create something beautiful.......)

(The above are just some ideas how the systems must "work".)

So again, is not the system that matters but the intention.
For example let's take a look what really Democracy is:

"Άριστη δημοκρατία είναι εκείνη που δεν έχει ούτε πάρα πολύ πλούσιους ούτε πάρα πολύ φτωχούς πολίτες."
"Perfect democracy is that system,that it haven't neither too rich or too poor citizens."
Thales of Miletus

The word Democracy means:
ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ - ΔΗΜΟΣ+ΚΡΑΤΩ
DEMOCRACY - PEOPLE+POWER

You can understand that today we don't really have Democracy because our intentions are Wrong.......many people are still "sleeping".
If we want to bring Heaven on Earth, we must first wake people up........

An interesting post thanks Skippy. Firstly, having only recently joined Avalon, I must admit that I was unaware of the existence of the 'United People an Alternative World Order' thread, I will catch up with this in due course.
What I found interesting about this post is not what it says, because it is all correct, but more what it doesn't say.
I guess that i shouldn't really pick on your post alone, because it is actually what I now see as missing from the declaration..........it's just that the thought came to me whist reading this one......sorry I'm rambling again :der:

It appears to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the declaration is all about US.
If we only focus on us, then we will ultimately end up back where we are now:
abZlWqVeLzg

In my opinion, what is missing from the declaration is some of the 'American Indian' Wisdom: we must include the rest of our fellow creatures / family which also includes our benevolent host: Mother Earth.
Now, as you have no doubt gathered, I am no philosophically trained wordsmith, so I would not venture to add my ramblings to the declaration, but I'm sure that someone could craft something........

modwiz

27th March 2011, 09:30

Perhaps we could phrase it in Iambic Pentameter or at least have some sort of rhyme scheme. :p

dukes4monny

27th March 2011, 09:44

The urine nicely extracted :biggrin:

skippy

27th March 2011, 10:15

79vdlEcWxvM

Hawkwind

27th March 2011, 12:40

Perhaps we could phrase it in Iambic Pentameter or at least have some sort of rhyme scheme. :p

I'm always up for a challenge and a bit of levity, how's this?

When in the course of human events,
we find that we must declare our intents
and speak of the truth, so long from us hidden
of rights long denied us by powers unbidden
of clean air and water, equality and care
of liberty, privacy, peace and what's fair
two rules shall guide us, and shine like the sun
Do no harm to others
Do not what you don't want done.

Hawkwind

27th March 2011, 13:30

But the important point to note is that in the overall scheme of things, we (and that includes the evil sociopaths) are no more significant than a spec of dust floating around looking for a TV stand on which to settle. Someone or something will eventually come along and give it a good wipe.

Damn, for someone who purportedly sees all action as ultimately futile, you certainly seem quite bent upon dragging others down into the black-hole of existential nihilism that you've dug for yourself. It's almost as if something matters to you. How can that be, if you're just a little dust speck waiting to be wiped away?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

skippy

27th March 2011, 15:51

The earth has been around for 4 billion years. We’ve only just arrived in the last quarter of a million years and we’ll probably soon perish and start again; perhaps with a new set of circumstances and rules. Who knows? But the important point to note is that in the overall scheme of things, we (and that includes the evil sociopaths) are no more significant than a spec of dust floating around looking for a TV stand on which to settle. Someone or something will eventually come along and give it a good wipe.

Bollinger, I appreciate your posts and in most cases I share your opinions and arguments. But, please respect others in their endeavors to change things, even if those are illusionary and naive. I hope you have some other things to offer, than a nihilistic point of view on human existence. But, please correct me if I'm wrong on this interpretation? This is a thread on change and construction not on negativity and nihilism.

Bollinger

27th March 2011, 15:56

Damn, for someone who purportedly sees all action as ultimately futile, you certainly seem quite bent upon dragging others down into the black-hole of existential nihilism that you've dug for yourself. It's almost as if something matters to you. How can that be, if you're just a little dust speck waiting to be wiped away?

What you call a black-hole of existential nihilism is what I call a knee-jerk reaction to someone putting a dose of reality before you. Wallowing in wishful thinking and expounding empty platitudes is not something that does it for me. If that’s what enables you to make it through the day, good, you have found your vocation.

Bollinger

27th March 2011, 16:29

Bollinger, I appreciate your posts and in most cases I share your opinions and arguments. But, please respect others in their endeavors to change things. I hope you have some other things to offer, than a nihilistic point of view on human existence. But, please correct me if I'm wrong on this interpretation? This is a thread on change and construction not on negativity and nihilism.

Skippy, would you really like me to treat everyone like little kids; i.e. tell them lies so they can go home happy. This is supposed to be a serious discussion on a declaration that only a handful people will ever see and comment on. It will change nothing even if it was the best declaration in the universe. It’s just words on a computer screen.

I have given many reasons and argued that for millennia people have done this. Good, clever, educated people, often those considered to be geniuses have tried and failed to bring any kind of lasting and universal change to the way things work on this planet. Do you never question why that should be? I have said that the human species is the problem. We ourselves are incapable of sticking to any sort of long term scheme that is supposed to help everyone as a whole. We are simply incapable of utilitarianism.

You’ll find that one’s pride, ego, greed and just plain old boredom always get in the way. Even with the best intention and the best declaration and the best possible set of physical circumstances, those particular ingredients will still be there. It is therefore a pointless and futile exercise to make any sort of attempt to bring about this great “balance” that people refer to without having the slightest idea what it actually means.

But people don’t want to hear that. First they invent a monster ruler called the “evil sociopaths”, make themselves unhappy about what evil is being done by the monster and then proceed to make declarations on how to defeat it. Can you not see how utterly ludicrous this is?

I have said on many occasions. The world is not perfect. There is injustice in it, there is wrong in it, there is every kind of evil and disparity you can think of in it. But that does not mean we have any power to change it. This is where I part company with most readers because they want something to cling on to. Some glimmer of hope, some saviour, some powerful prophet or alien or light-being or some promise of a sudden and unprecedented rush of human solidarity to form and demand and cause the whole thing to change. That is just wishful thinking.

You accuse me of being negative. I would suggest it’s not negativity but a reminder of our realities. If you don’t wish to hear it, that’s another matter.

king anthony

27th March 2011, 17:00

You accuse me of being negative. I would suggest it’s not negativity but a reminder of our realities. If you don’t wish to hear it, that’s another matter.

When one speaks the truth (reality), many resist (for whatever reason), thus say 'you're negative'; a reflection of their limitations. What the 'many' fail to see is that it takes a 'positive person' to, not only accept the truth, but to endure it. Words of others ('you're negative') I am all too familiar with.

Change will always be, either by chance or design; it is how one 'overcomes and adapts' to change individually (and collectively) that determines outcome. Most are treated as children, because it is easier to accept the (minuscule) benefits of the parent (the 'few') rather then 'stand on their own two feet'.

skippy

27th March 2011, 17:56

You accuse me of being negative. I would suggest it’s not negativity but a reminder of our realities. If you don’t wish to hear it, that’s another matter.

Bollinger, my goal is not to accuse you, but we are trying to create something here. As stated earlier, I agree and share most of your ideas. But trust me, we know what's going on this world, no need to emphasize.

Skippy, would you really like me to treat everyone like little kids; i.e. tell them lies so they can go home happy. This is supposed to be a serious discussion on a declaration that only a handful people will ever see and comment on. It will change nothing even if it was the best declaration in the universe. It’s just words on a computer screen.

Life is what you make it and we’ve decided to change it. Called it illusion, called it ignorance, called it naive, we simply don't accept the reality as-is. Of course, these are just words on a computer screen, but nothing is more practical than a good theory, and you've seen nothing yet. BTW, I prefer not to lie to children, they are too smart for that, and they deserve better. I care about their future, and I hope you do?

modwiz

27th March 2011, 18:24

king anthony

27th March 2011, 18:34

When in the course of human events,
we find that we must declare our intents
and speak of the truth, so long from us hidden
of rights long denied us by powers unbidden
of clean air and water, equality and care
of liberty, privacy, peace and what's fair
two rules shall guide us, and shine like the sun
Do no harm to others
Do not what you don't want done.

I love it. Brilliant!

The essence of (true) Natural Law - that which is to be regained.

Chicodoodoo

27th March 2011, 19:51

If anyone purposefully harms you, they are harming themselves. If they destroy the world, what have you lost?

I lose everything. If they destroy the world, what have you lost? You make it sound like you lose nothing. Is that what you have, nothing? Is that what you truly believe?

The reality is that nothing stays the same. Things change. Things can change for the better or for the worse. It takes judgment to recognize which is occurring, and what “things” are being affected. Perhaps your judgment needs developing, perhaps it has been developed to the point of absurdity, or perhaps you have decided judgment is futile. It is not futile, because judgment leads to change, and properly balanced judgment leads to properly balanced change. We can participate in change, and we can have a powerful influence on it. In fact, we are often directly responsible for change. Need proof? It’s all around you. If you can’t see it, I doubt I can help you.

I apologize that the meaning of my words is lost on you. I wish I could do better.

Bollinger

27th March 2011, 22:33

The reality is that nothing stays the same. Things change. Things can change for the better or for the worse. It takes judgment to recognize which is occurring, and what “things” are being affected. Perhaps your judgment needs developing, perhaps it has been developed to the point of absurdity, or perhaps you have decided judgment is futile. It is not futile, because judgment leads to change, and properly balanced judgment leads to properly balanced change. We can participate in change, and we can have a powerful influence on it. In fact, we are often directly responsible for change. Need proof? It’s all around you. If you can’t see it, I doubt I can help you.

I apologize that the meaning of my words is lost on you. I wish I could do better.

Yes, I wish it too.

indiana

27th March 2011, 23:16

I salute your efforts Chicodoodoo :horn:

modwiz

27th March 2011, 23:44

I salute your efforts Chicodoodoo :horn:

I agree Indiana. When Chicodoodoo starts a thread he is always present and manages it with dignity and tenacity.

Hawkwind

28th March 2011, 00:48

Just to avoid any possible miscommunication. Let me paraphrase my understanding of a few of your points.

It will change nothing even if it was the best declaration in the universe.
What you're trying to do is hopeless. Give up.

for millennia people have done this. Good, clever, educated people, often those considered to be geniuses have tried and failed to bring any kind of lasting and universal change to the way things work on this planet.
It's all been tried before. Give up.

the human species is the problem.
The problem is ingrained in our nature and therefore cannot be resolved. Give up.

But people don’t want to hear that. First they invent a monster ruler called the “evil sociopaths”
There is no grand conspiracy or secret cabal. The problem is simply human nature. Give up.

Well, for starts, I find it extremely interesting that someone who doesn't believe that change for the better is possible would bother to post on this thread or even participate in this forum, for that matter. If you sincerely believe that our problems are simply the result of human nature playing itself out, then our desire to solve those problems must also be viewed as another aspect of human nature. Why is our attempt to solve the problems any more futile than your attempts to dissuade us? Unless, of course, your purpose is actually to be as disruptive as possible to our efforts. As for there not being any group of ruling elite sociopaths- if you honestly believe that, then you've made it abundantly clear which of us lives in fantasyland.

Chicodoodoo

28th March 2011, 02:48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvM

Skippy, this is not only brilliant, but oh so appropriate. Once the idea is born and the unity formed, the team functions like a well-oiled machine and scores! I love it! Thanks!

Mad Hatter

28th March 2011, 03:08

We are simply incapable of utilitarianism.

By that quote I take it you have read the book and thus are aware of the fact that the Author was the recipient of probably one of the best educations ever delivered in the english speaking world albeit delivered in an unorthodox manner. I put it to you that if we all had the benefit of such an education and thus all be able to understand the concepts espoused the world would be a significantly better place.

I do not disagree with your sentiment that human nature itself is the biggest issue but unless you are proposing that every human constantly operates at the instictive fight or flight level then it should be more than self evident that behavioural changes can and do occur. I would go so far as to say that environment and education would be the two largest factors that can influence that change.

As an obviously intelligent and well educated individual you would understand the concept of teaching a man to fish so perhaps as a challenge to yourself you might like to try drawing the rest of us to your conclusions without the continuous use of the proverbial brick bat (although I will admit it does have a time and place).

With regard to your comments on sociopaths I was wondering if you have seen the documentary 'The Corporation' http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=2 You may be correct in that it is not sociopathic individuals we need to concern ourselves with since pyscopathic corporations are a much larger and more immediate problem.

cheers

Chicodoodoo

28th March 2011, 03:43

We are simply incapable of utilitarianism.

With regard to your comments on sociopaths I was wondering if you have seen the documentary 'The Corporation' http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=2 You may be correct in that it is not sociopathic individuals we need to concern ourselves with since pyscopathic corporations are a much larger and more immediate problem.

I've seen 'The Corporation' twice and highly recommend it. It should be noted that the sociopathic characteristics of a corporation are a direct reflection of the sociopathic characteristics of the true decision-makers of the corporation. Sociopaths congregate in certain job areas due to the match between their native characteristics and the requirements of the job. If you are cunning, clever, deceptive, charming, decisive, aloof, shameless, and most of all, completely uncaring and non-empathetic, what kinds of employment would you flourish in? Law, directing large businesses, and most of all, politics. Is it a coincidence that politics draws its manpower primarily (in fact, almost exclusively) from the legal and big business worlds? I think not.

Bollinger

28th March 2011, 11:27

Rather than get drawn further into this ping-pong style argument, I thought I’d repeat the declaration here for convenience and talk about that. Yes I support it. Most people would support it (as demonstrated by the numbers who voted in favour of it) but what does this declaration actually achieve? To me it is simply a wish list of very generic items that in principle any one with an ounce of sense would embrace and endorse. But that’s the easy part. The difficult bit is listing detailed methods and rules you would need to achieve just one of those things, never mind all of it. Here they are:

Clean air that sustains health
Clean water that sustains health
Clean food that sustains health
Basic equality
Basic liberty
Basic fairness
Basic privacy
Basic care
Basic peace
Equal access to truthful information

Two rules help determine what constitutes “clean” and “basic”, and they are:

1. The Golden Rule – Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
2. The Physicians Creed – Do no harm.

The practical items such as clean air, water and food are perfectly valid but what on Earth does “basic fairness”, “basic privacy”, “basic care” or “basic peace” actually entail? Who is going to decide if we’ve achieved “basic fairness” and what standard will they use? What does “basic peace” mean in practical terms? Does everyone have to shake hands with at least 10 people every day, do we offer each other cups of tea, do we force everyone to destroy their guns, do we bake cakes on Sunday, do we have street parties every last Friday of June, do we climb the nearest peak and meditate for an hour, do we stand on one leg and break wind in synchrony at an appointed hour of the day, every day?

When I read some of these posts I get the distinct impression that I’m talking to a very naïve bunch of people who have managed to convince themselves that there is an evil monkey in the closet and is causing all the problems in the world. Remove the monkey and the problems will disappear. Tut, tut, tut.

Let me give you an example. An employer has 1000 people working in a factory and he pays them a wage. Let’s assume the people are happy with their jobs, pay and conditions but there is one snag. The factory is spewing out something not very pleasant into a river nearby. You and I might say that this employer is evil and greedy because he does not care for the environment. The employer would argue that he is providing jobs and security for a thousand people and accuses you of being evil and careless by protesting and endangering 1000 livelihoods. Which item in your declaration are you going to call on to solve this little problem and a billion other ones that are sure to come up? This, by the way, is precisely how things are with or without the evil monkey in the closet. Do you really imagine that everything is suddenly going to fall into place just because you’ve decided to have a declaration and remove the monkey?

Here is another example for you. Gandhi managed to oust the evil British from India because – and rightly so – they were taking advantage of everything and everyone in the name of self-interest and greed. Once the British were gone, did the country suddenly spring into wealth? Did its population suddenly receive a windfall? No of course not. The natives began to fight among themselves and eventually the country divided into two poverty-stricken nations instead of one and it continues even today. Now of course you are going to tell me it was still the evil monkey, which hadn’t gone at all and continued stirring it all up, and I’m going to tell you that human nature is a far better explanation – no need for an evil monkey.

So, faced with these huge issues, you decide to write a very long and detailed constitution. You start with a list of rules full of commissions and prohibitions in order to be fair to everyone or at least the majority. You find there is a problem with that. It’s just not possible to be fair to everyone or the majority all the time. Here is an example. You make a rule that says no one is allowed to build a house with more than 4 bedrooms. This is to stop greedy people buying up land and building on it a huge mansion with only himself, his wife and a couple of spoilt children to live in it – very good. But then for the sake of not allowing those few from occupying more space than they need, you punish thousands of others who have large families but aren’t allowed a house with more than 4 bedrooms. What rule are you going to call on to ensure fairness to all or even just the majority?

I have some news for you. It’s already been done. Every fledgling society starts with a basic set of good, well-meaning ideals which on paper seem perfectly valid and commendable but in practice they fall over because we are obliged to move from “thinking” to “doing”. So you are forced to write more and more rules. Endless acts of parliament, endless amendments, sections and subsections to try and cover all the angles and all the possible loopholes. Has it not been done? Is that not what we have now?

Is it not the most horrible vicious circle in which you are bound to find yourself by blaming some illusive dark force – that may or may not exist – in order to explain all ills in the world rather than looking at the most obvious and likely culprit which is simply how we are? You may wish that it wasn't the case, kick and scream and deny it, but it doesn’t change anything.

I appreciate your well-meaning attempt at referring me to videos, documentaries, books and utterances by various people, presumably for the purpose of helping me to align my views with yours but I prefer to find my own sources and make up my own mind about these things.

In closing, my contention, therefore, and perhaps even the purpose for writing on this forum, since it has been questioned by Hawkwind, is to remind everyone of the enormity of the problem we are faced with and the fact that we are already very far down the road to trying to solve it. This is not a statement that conveys “giving up” as Hawkwind will choose to take it; it is a statement that is attempting to inject a modicum of sanity into thinking that quite frankly is based on little more than the feelling of being somewhat unhappy with the state of the world.

Unless and until mankind, as a whole, evolves to a stage where he is able to embrace and put the community before himself and his own interests, we will have these problems. All available evidence shows that we are far from this and no amount of wishful thinking, declaring, arguing and applauding is going to hurry it up. Now do you see how futile this exercise is?

skippy

28th March 2011, 14:24

In closing, my contention, therefore, and perhaps even the purpose for writing on this forum, since it has been questioned by Hawkwind, is to remind everyone of the enormity of the problem we are faced with and the fact that we are already very far down the road to trying to solve it. This is not a statement that conveys “giving up” as Hawkwind will choose to take it; it is a statement that is attempting to inject a modicum of sanity into thinking that quite frankly is based on little more than the feelling of being somewhat unhappy with the state of the world.

Unless and until mankind, as a whole, evolves to a stage where he is able to embrace and put the community before himself and his own interests, we will have these problems. All available evidence shows that we are far from this and no amount of wishful thinking, declaring, arguing and applauding is going to hurry it up. Now do you see how futile this exercise is?

"Only a God Can Save Us"
Martin Heidegger, "Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten," Der Spiegel 30 (Mai, 1976).

Revere

28th March 2011, 15:28

Dear Avalonians,

Movements are rarely known by their Declarations. Most organizations rarely move beyond declaring lofty claims and ambitions. As you all see after 12 pages of debate we have mainly stumbled on the Biblical and multi-religious Truth that mankind is fundamentally flawed and must change from within to change without. Very True! So, pray, teach, love and live as you claim. This we all should be doing already.

A movement is only truly remembered by its actions. Let's let the well intended Declaration rest for now and discuss ideas on taking one actual proactive action . Let us see what that debate looks like! It must not be a perfect action but it must be well thought out. Agreeing on an action will tell more about this "potential" movement then 100 declarations.

Is there anyone willing to be first and throw something on the table?

I will after some others go so that I am not accused of setting my own table! Possibly someone else will do the idea for me.

Proactive action...now that would really be something, if we can agree!

Peace,
-R-

P.S. Change the Thread if we must.

Hawkwind

28th March 2011, 17:16

... what does this declaration actually achieve? To me it is simply a wish list of very generic items that in principle any one with an ounce of sense would embrace and endorse.

The declaration, as I understand it, is not meant to accomplish anything. It merely serves as an instrument for reaching consensus as to what we would like to accomplish. It is, as you say, a generic wish list. It is neither a plan nor a map, but a necessary attempt to agree upon a destination before plans and maps can be made.

I would agree with your assessment that a better world can only be achieved and maintained by better people. I would contend, however, that changes to existing socio-political structures could be made which would facilitate both goals. Removing "evil monkeys", real or imagined, will most definitely not resolve the problem unless the process by which they can attain positions of power is also removed.

Do you really imagine that everything is suddenly going to fall into place just because you’ve decided to have a declaration and remove the monkey?

No, of course not. The quality of life on the planet for the majority of its inhabitants, however, continues to deteriorate. Several systems required for the planet to sustain life at all appear to be in critical condition. The root cause of these imbalances can be traced back to humanity acting in service to self (STS). Yes, that quality exists in each of us, but (as I said in a previous post) the current process by which leaders are selected tends to appoint the most STS, sociopathic, examples among us to power. That, from my perspective, is the heart of the matter. As such, focusing attention and effort there seems the most likely means by which to bring about positive change.

So you are forced to write more and more rules. Endless acts of parliament, endless amendments, sections and subsections to try and cover all the angles and all the possible loopholes. Has it not been done? Is that not what we have now?

And what if we return to common law? The entirety of which is 1- Do no harm to others and 2- Do all that you have agreed to do.

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

This is not a statement that conveys “giving up” as Hawkwind will choose to take it; it is a statement that is attempting to inject a modicum of sanity into thinking that quite frankly is based on little more than the feelling of being somewhat unhappy with the state of the world.

It's difficult to see how your repeated pointing out the futility of our endeavor could be taken as anything other than an attempt to discourage. I actually don't have a problem with that, up to a point. If, for example, a group of hikers arrived in a village with plans to attempt a previously unscaled mountain, some amount of warning and head shaking from the villagers would be tolerable and perhaps even expected. If someone, however, decided to follow the hikers up the mountain and daily tell them how futile their efforts were, well- let's just say, it probably wouldn't be much appreciated. Please bear in mind that the "modicum of sanity" you are attempting to inject is based entirely on your view of what is sane.

Chicodoodoo

28th March 2011, 18:14

Unless and until mankind, as a whole, evolves to a stage where he is able to embrace and put the community before himself and his own interests, we will have these problems.

Mankind becomes "as a whole" when it becomes a united people. Mankind embraces all when it becomes a united people. Mankind equates community to each individual when it becomes a united people. Mankind will not have these problems when it is a united and organized people. Can you not see that we are not naive, rather we are way ahead of you?

Many of us have already languished in the "hopelessness" stage where you are now. We saw how clever the trap is. We saw how escape appeared futile. We too blamed ourselves for being trapped, even though we were born into the trap through no fault of our own. We no longer have that perspective. Our perspective is that we must find a solution so that the unborn no longer begin as we did.

Bollinger

28th March 2011, 20:27

The declaration, as I understand it, is not meant to accomplish anything. It merely serves as an instrument for reaching consensus as to what we would like to accomplish. It is, as you say, a generic wish list. It is neither a plan nor a map, but a necessary attempt to agree upon a destination before plans and maps can be made.

I would agree with your assessment that a better world can only be achieved and maintained by better people. I would contend, however, that changes to existing socio-political structures could be made which would facilitate both goals. Removing "evil monkeys", real or imagined, will most definitely not resolve the problem unless the process by which they can attain positions of power is also removed.

Hawkwind, you do make me laugh (meant in a nice way). So you now admit the declaration is not meant to achieve anything other than agreement that we need to change the world for the better. So, what else is new? I spent a good amount of time in my last post carefully explaining with logic and reason why it is virtually impossible to agree on any kind of meaningful and detailed definition for this “destination” you speak of, let alone any plans and maps for getting there. And yet, here you are still telling me it’s what you want to do.

Next you talk about removing the possibility of evil monkeys coming to power. That too is not possible. Most leaders only become corrupt after their election to office. But let’s assume they are all egocentric megalomaniacs to start with. How are you going to change the “socio-political structure” to stop these people coming to power? Is there going to be a vetting procedure? Is every citizen going to have to run a personal check on every candidate to see if they have fit a certain profile? What’s your strategy?

It's difficult to see how your repeated pointing out the futility of our endeavor could be taken as anything other than an attempt to discourage. I actually don't have a problem with that, up to a point.

If, for example, a group of hikers arrived in a village with plans to attempt a previously unscaled mountain, some amount of warning and head shaking from the villagers would be tolerable and perhaps even expected. If someone, however, decided to follow the hikers up the mountain and daily tell them how futile their efforts were, well- let's just say, it probably wouldn't be much appreciated. Please bear in mind that the "modicum of sanity" you are attempting to inject is based entirely on your view of what is sane.

Analogies prove nothing but they can be useful sometimes in providing greater clarity to a complex point or argument. In this case, the analogy with mountain climbing isn’t valid I’m afraid. I’ll explain. Even if this particular mountain hasn’t been conquered, we know that other mountains (possibly of similar size and height) have been scaled.

I went to some length in my previous post to explain that this particular challenge, encapsulated within the declaration, has never been achieved by anyone at any time in the history of man (even though Chico claims it happened during some unrecorded history for which there is no evidence that I can find) simply because there has always been greed; there has always been service to self. It has always been with us. We all of us carry it around like a disease and when required or prompted, it comes out like an unsightly rash.

As for the sanity bit, the important thing to grasp is that I’m not actually calling anyone insane but using the word to draw attention to the fact that the things you want to see on this planet, at its current stage of development, is not possible. It won’t happen in our own lifetimes and it might well take several more millennia (if we make it that far) before nature makes us into better people.

Since you like analogies, here is one from me. The problem you have is like the child who sees a toy, falls head over heels in love with it and longs to have it. He/she will say and do anything to try and persuade the mother or the father to buy it. But it’s simply too expensive. It’s not affordable. It’s not available. It’s not within reach. Maybe in the future, the mother says to the teary child; so upset; so distraught that the toy in the window is going to have to remain there for a while longer.

If my words are coming across as an “attempt to discourage”, it means they are causing some emotional discomfort for which I apologise. Neither do I wish to sound all doom and gloom because that often says more about the speaker than what is being spoken. While it is certainly true that we cannot change the world, we can perhaps affect some change in ourselves. You can try and see how far nature will allow you, as just one individual, to stray from its inexorable rules of engagement. You will see that even for one person, it is extremely difficult to go against the tide of human nature.

dukes4monny

28th March 2011, 20:52

buckminster fuller

29th March 2011, 00:50

Bollinger,

allow me to jump in :whip:

I went to some length in my previous post to explain that this particular challenge, encapsulated within the declaration, has never been achieved by anyone at any time in the history of man (even though Chico claims it happened during some unrecorded history for which there is no evidence that I can find) simply because there has always been greed; there has always been service to self. It has always been with us. We all of us carry it around like a disease and when required or prompted, it comes out like an unsightly rash.

What you refer to as a disease is our compulsion for survival twisted by our sick "modern" way of doing things, where we value everything in terms of money and competition. Kept in guilt and fear. It is the paradigm we live in that created it, purposely or not. That is the paradigm of a society that abolished true individual freedom to replace it with an illusion of freedom, based on the postulate that one needs to own things in order to make it through his lifetime with some chance of happiness on the way. Shining in the eye of the neighbour in terms of materialist accomplishments and social acceptance is the modern graal for the occidental bipedal creature. This compulsion for survival can be used in a creative way, instead of "economic growth", unemployment, crimes, etc..

As for the sanity bit, the important thing to grasp is that I’m not actually calling anyone insane but using the word to draw attention to the fact that the things you want to see on this planet, at its current stage of development, is not possible. It won’t happen in our own lifetimes and it might well take several more millennia (if we make it that far) before nature makes us into better people.

Again, nature is not separated from us, we "are" nature, we just lost the ways of it. And it is in essence creative, with such pugnacity that I would say we are miserably failing it. Consciousness gave us a really broad range of possible futures, it really is up to us to decide where we want to go and what we want to be. And if we don't see the results of our attempts in our lifetimes, I think it is only fair to try to pave the way towards a real paradigm shift for the next generations, and not some illusory revolution, soon to be hijacked by a corrupted form of power.

Since you like analogies, here is one from me. The problem you have is like the child who sees a toy, falls head over heels in love with it and longs to have it. He/she will say and do anything to try and persuade the mother or the father to buy it. But it’s simply too expensive. It’s not affordable. It’s not available. It’s not within reach. Maybe in the future, the mother says to the teary child; so upset; so distraught that the toy in the window is going to have to remain there for a while longer.

Your analogy works very well in a consumerist based world. The child reaction is only the result of the parenting he received, plus all the advertisement and eye candies that invade our everyday life. His longing to have the toy is the outcome of the money/competition paradigm we are merely surviving in. My son never did, and will never cry for such a thing.. I'm not the best dad in the world, but I did protect him from getting trapped into this kind of senseless frustration, and was able to explain things to him at quite an early age, and he understood well... Your assumption that we are acting in frustration may be founded, at least for me because I really am aware of the potentiality of every one of us, and as a whole, but I think this frustration is adequate in so much as it reminds me of who I am.

If my words are coming across as an “attempt to discourage”, it means they are causing some emotional discomfort for which I apologise. Neither do I wish to sound all doom and gloom because that often says more about the speaker than what is being spoken. While it is certainly true that we cannot change the world, we can perhaps affect some change in ourselves. You can try and see how far nature will allow you, as just one individual, to stray from its inexorable rules of engagement. You will see that even for one person, it is extremely difficult to go against the tide of human nature.

Why again the separateness from nature ? And then again, why bow to something we should be joyful of ? We became co-creators of nature with this gift of consciousness. That is a responsibility that we haven't endorsed yet. It is time we grow up and this can only come from us.

Peace

Chicodoodoo

29th March 2011, 04:32

Icecold

29th March 2011, 04:45

"Political Ponerology" by Andrew M. Lobaczewski is a good place to start.

Ahhh. I was wondering when you were going to roll this out. I have a copy of the book and read it.

You failed to mention....

Edited with Notes and Commentary by
Laura Knight-Jadczyk

I had you pegged all along Chico.

The upshot is that, the exponents of this view WILL conduct a form of genocide which is obvious from the thread on the Cass forum regarding future societies and what to do with the psychos. I posted on that thread...different username. lol

Its all there. I won't provide a link to her site, but anyone is free to read the material. Use the search function.

So Chico you are a Laura Knight buff? OK.

Chicodoodoo

29th March 2011, 05:07

modwiz

29th March 2011, 05:09

To help things along:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_ponerology01.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_ponerology02.htm

One of these is by Laura Knight-Jadczyk. The second link.

One more link. If you click this one we might never see you again. lol

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_temas2.htm#sociopolitica

Icecold

29th March 2011, 05:30

"Political Ponerology" by Andrew M. Lobaczewski is a good place to start.

Ahhh. I was wondering when you were going to role this out. I have a copy of the book and read it.

You failed to mention....

Edited with Notes and Commentary by
Laura Knight-Jadczyk

I had you pegged all along Chico.

You really are tiresome with your witch-hunt accusations, Icecold. Why don't you attack the ideas instead of the messengers? Lobaczewski and his fellow researchers did their work long ago with no knowledge of Laura Knight-Jadczyk or her passionate views.

So, since you read the book, what specifically is your contention with Lobaczewski's material? I suggest you make your post in the thread "Are sociopaths human?" Don't worry, I will see it. In fact, I look forward to it.

I didn't bring the book up, you did...in this thread BTW.

The roots of this idea.....
http://catholicusanglicanus.wordpress.com/tag/ponerology/

Ponerology is defined as ...The Science of Evil.

http://ponerology.blogspot.com/

A supporter of the idea...

http://solari.com/blog/?p=96

Catherine Austin Fitts is the president of Solari, Inc., the publisher of The Solari Report, managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC., and a supporter of the 9/11 Truth movement

But she was also....

Fitts served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing[3] Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc., an investment bank and financial software developer. She is now the president of Solari, Inc., and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC.

Funny that she is one of Bush's appointees, a Wall St. Banker and yet she supports the idea of Ponerology. She would be a likely candidate for elite status? Strange.

It looks like she has become a whistleblower...but remains a banker of sorts. Smart woman.

Alex Jones is interviews Catherine Fitts... lots of commercials..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U9UUcaDXZA&feature=player_embedded#at=50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-LL0HakGIc&feature=player_embedded

There is no opposing view to the obvious relationship between psychopathy and leadership in the world today. It seems to be a consensus view. I would not challenge the fact that those who seek positions of power in any form are wrong-headed. Its unanimous.

But, to not mention the solution is worrying. The only obvious solution is genocide or mass incarceration. Possibly brain-washing? Fun times ahead for humanity. The view is highly acceptable to christians and possibly muslims. It respects the sanctity of an idea of evil.

Mad Hatter

29th March 2011, 05:51

One has to keep in mind change is always the result of unreasonable people as it they who are apt to draw a line in the sand...

OmeyocaN777

29th March 2011, 06:01

Chicodoodoo

29th March 2011, 06:26

Funny that she is one of Bush's appointees, a Wall St. Banker and yet she supports the idea of Ponerology. She would be a likely candidate for elite status? Strange.

Is this your point? Seriously?

No, she's not a candidate for ruler-of-the-world elite status. Not even close. Kissinger would be closer, Brzezinski, too. How about Greenspan, Bernanke, Cheney, Bush Sr., or Tony Blair? And these are only the servants. The real rulers avoid the limelight and stick to the shadows. Think more along the lines of the Group of 33 that Charles spoke of. We don't even know who they are.

And keep this in mind. The real sociopaths won't hesitate to endorse Lobaczewski's work if they have a way to use it to their advantage. So far, the pressure has consistently been to suppress it. Now that it's out and gaining ground, they will have to use another tactic.

So, again I ask you, what is your contention with Lobaczewski's work. Where did he go wrong, in your opinion? How is the work that he and other psychologists did flawed? Don't give me a bunch of links. Just tell me in your own words. You read the book, so you must have an opinion. Let's hear it.

Chicodoodoo

29th March 2011, 06:37

Give a look at this man, i think you gonna find interesting his way of view about Unity.

http://stevebeckow.com/2011/03/carlos-barrios-mayan-elders-2012/

You're right, I did find his view interesting. It's very much the same as my view. Unity is the key.

Thanks for that link.

buckminster fuller

29th March 2011, 13:24

it's not a genocide we're after... What a foolish thing to think..

mQuBmdjFtBc

peace

edit........: to clear up things, those lyrics are obviously addressed to people suffering from a sociopathic condition....

buckminster fuller

29th March 2011, 14:43

Hi Chicodoodoo
Give a look at this man, i think you gonna find interesting his way of view about Unity.

What Carlos Barrios and the Mayan Elders are Saying About 2012

http://stevebeckow.com/2011/03/carlos-barrios-mayan-elders-2012/

This guy wrote his own declaration ... :) : http://stevebeckow.com/worldwide-march-millions/declare-peoples-global-revolution/

Chicodoodoo

29th March 2011, 15:31

But, to not mention the solution is worrying. The only obvious solution is genocide or mass incarceration. Possibly brain-washing? Fun times ahead for humanity. The view is highly acceptable to christians and possibly muslims. It respects the sanctity of an idea of evil.

I see you have added more to your post since my last reply. So it now appears your point is back on the witch-hunt concern.

What you call the only obvious solution is not the only solution. Other solutions were discussed in the thread "Are sociopaths human?" A reasonable solution was to identify sociopaths early and redirect their skills from positions of power / leadership into other areas where they can contribute to the common good instead of destroying it. Sociopaths can be looked at just like every other individual, as a potential contributor to the common good.

Chicodoodoo

29th March 2011, 15:43

This guy wrote his own declaration ... :) : http://stevebeckow.com/worldwide-march-millions/declare-peoples-global-revolution/

Great stuff! We, as a people, are beginning to be focused in the right direction. It is declarations like this that tell me we are being funneled onto the right path. The intent is condensing into something solid, just like water vapor becomes rain. Action will follow, just like rain becomes rivers that naturally carve out their own path.

Chicodoodoo

29th March 2011, 16:07

One more link. If you click this one we might never see you again. lol

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_temas2.htm#sociopolitica

You're not kidding! The amount of information there is astounding. I checked a few of the links that I'm already familiar with, and the quality of the information is very good as well. I'm very tempted to go back to school and simply disappear into the bowels of this web page!

Bollinger

29th March 2011, 16:19

While it is certainly true that we cannot change the world....

This pretty much summarizes your position, Bollinger. It is absurd that you could think your statement is true, and with certainty no less. Who do you think has been changing the world for the past 100 years? Even if you refuse to accept that a small group of organized sociopaths has been orchestrating all the major changes we have seen in the last century, surely you aren't claiming the changes all happened by themselves, or that there has been no change. A great deal of evidence suggests that the sociopathic elite, a very small minority of humanity, are responsible for directing the changes in the world. Imagine the changes a large majority of humanity could accomplish if it was leading instead of following.

Rather than ridiculing the notion that sociopaths are directing humanity, you need to do some research. You clearly are arguing from a position of ignorance. There is information out there. "Political Ponerology" by Andrew M. Lobaczewski is a good place to start. It will help you understand why the ruling sociopaths have actively suppressed this particular branch of science, since it runs counter to their survival. Then when you can speak intelligently about sociopaths, come back and set us all straight.

Chico, I have tried everything from common sense to arguing from first principles to providing examples showing you that what you are proposing has already been done, is being done and will continue to be done. I have carefully and painstakingly (as much as one can through this medium of communication) made reference to how difficult it is in practice to be fair to just one person all the time never mind to the majority or even everyone. I tried to steer away from generalities and grand statements specifically because the devil is always in the detail not the grand illusion you depict in your declaration which has no precedence in history or basis in reality.

And yet, despite all my efforts, you continue droning on about this obsessive fixation with the small group of “organised sociopaths” that you believe are busy toiling away in their relentless evil ways to see that we do not prosper. So, I wouldn’t use the word absurd against other people if I were you!

It is not necessary to do research to see that 2 + 2 does not make 5, which is what you’re essentially proposing. Anyway, I’m sure you’ll find something to come back with - just for the sake of it - and no doubt it will have your favourite word “sociopath” in it.

Revere

29th March 2011, 17:06

Icecold
I didn't bring the book up, you did...in this thread BTW.

The roots of this idea.....
http://catholicusanglicanus.wordpres...ag/ponerology/

Ponerology is defined as ...The Science of Evil.

http://ponerology.blogspot.com/

A supporter of the idea...

http://solari.com/blog/?p=96

Catherine Austin Fitts is the president of Solari, Inc., the publisher of The Solari Report, managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC., and a supporter of the 9/11 Truth movement

But she was also....

Fitts served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing[3] Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc., an investment bank and financial software developer. She is now the president of Solari, Inc., and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC.

Funny that she is one of Bush's appointees, a Wall St. Banker and yet she supports the idea of Ponerology. She would be a likely candidate for elite status? Strange.

It looks like she has become a whistleblower...but remains a banker of sorts. Smart woman.

Alex Jones is interviews Catherine Fitts... lots of commercials

1. There is no opposing view to the obvious relationship between psychopathy and leadership in the world today. It seems to be a consensus view. I would not challenge the fact that those who seek positions of power in any form are wrong-headed. Its unanimous.

But, to not mention the solution is worrying. The only obvious solution is genocide or mass incarceration. Possibly brain-washing? Fun times ahead for humanity. The view is highly acceptable to christians and possibly muslims. It respects the sanctity of an idea of evil.

Icecold,
Umm… the YouTube links above are not Fitts…they are Ray McGovern. Could you state more clearly what you dis-like about Fitts? Are you afraid that she is a fraud do to her past associations? Also, in reviewing the other links I did not read any call for killing off all suspected Psychopaths. So, I need help understanding your point. Thanks.

Peace,
Revere

Chicodoodoo

29th March 2011, 18:36

And yet, despite all my efforts, you continue droning on about this obsessive fixation with the small group of “organised sociopaths” that you believe are busy toiling away in their relentless evil ways to see that we do not prosper.

Bollinger, you have to do more than just say, "You're wrong." You have to show why we are wrong in a clear and indisputable way. I don't have any problem with being shown I am wrong. In fact, it's what I live for, to discover the errors of my thinking. Unfortunately, you are not helping me in that quest. Please try harder.

skippy

29th March 2011, 20:41

I have tried everything from common sense to arguing from first principles to providing examples showing you that what you are proposing has already been done, is being done and will continue to be done.

Bollinger, thanks for sharing your thoughts in a sobering way. As always your posts are food for thought and they make a lot of sense. To continue the discussion on this subject, please consider the following interview by ‘Der Spiegel’, a German magazine, with the philosopher Martin Heidegger. For those who have difficulties with the notion ‘God’, please read ‘Supernatural Force’ instead.

DER SPIEGEL: “Can the individual still influence this network of inevitabilities at all, or can philosophy influence it, or can they both influence it together in that philosophy leads one individual or several individuals to a certain action?”
HEIDEGGER: “Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavors. Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god.”

What are your thoughts on the declaration as a mean for human beings to express their position, to show what they stand for, and to protect human dignity? You are saying that this has already been done, is being done and will continue to be done and therefore doesn’t make sense. Well, this declaration at this moment in time, makes perfectly sense to me.

..despite all my efforts, you continue droning on about this obsessive fixation with the small group of “organised sociopaths” that you believe are busy toiling away in their relentless evil ways to see that we do not prosper.

Does this declaration prevent some, to execute their evil plans? Off course not, but what counts are our intentions as a united people. For example, in another thread here at PA, Chicodoodoo, describes an original way to defend what’s ours. I agree that we should go beyond the “us against them” way of seeing, but we have all our shortcomings. For the sake of the discussion, below an extract:

We build the foundations of a new paradigm, one where people decide their fate. Instead of tearing down the existing system, we build a new one that functions independently but at the same time as the old system. There is no need to challenge the power of the existing system, and it would be life-threatening to do so. At first, the decisions of the people will be simply for show, much as the Declaration is right now. These decisions will have no “legal” authority and have no effect on anything concrete, including the direction and operation of the existing system. But they will clearly show the intent of the people, and as the numbers of united people speaking out with one voice grow, so will their authority, and so will the impact of their decisions. As it becomes more and more visible which system operates in the best interests of the people and which system truly allows all people to participate, the masses will naturally migrate over to the new system. The old system simply shrivels up and becomes obsolete.

Whether this new system will work, I have no idea, probably not. But, as already said, what’s important is to make a statement of us “Being” human. The poll confirms that people here at Avallon are supporting the declaration. If there is some other “Being” around in this universe, the message will be picked-up somewhere. And if not, that we do not die meaningless deaths in the face of an absent god, so to speak in the words of Heidegger. But, let’s take things one step further; there might be more in it than just preparing readiness...

A movement is only truly remembered by its actions. Let's let the well intended Declaration rest for now and discuss ideas on taking one actual proactive action . Let us see what that debate looks like!

Indeed, maybe it’s a good moment to start a new thread on the subject, e.g. on the various feedback and contributions here and how-to integrate this valuable input in a new updated version of the declaration. Anyone?

jeannacav

29th March 2011, 21:30

This poll is to gauge support for the Declaration listed below.

=== United People Declaration ===

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for all of the common people to organize and unite for the common good, they should declare their reasons and intentions.

Not all truths are self-evident, especially when there are those that want the truth hidden or controlled. The truth is that the common good has not been served by existing human organizations. This truth must be revealed and communicated to all, and it must be remedied. That is the purpose of this Declaration.

There are natural rights that belong to all human beings, and these rights are being denied by selfish individuals and organizations. This must not be tolerated, or tyranny and mass suffering will surely follow. Among the natural rights of all human beings are:

Clean air that sustains health
Clean water that sustains health
Clean food that sustains health
Basic equality
Basic liberty
Basic fairness
Basic privacy
Basic care
Basic peace
Equal access to truthful information

Two rules help determine what constitutes “clean” and “basic”, and they are:

1. The Golden Rule – Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
2. The Physicians Creed – Do no harm.

There is a very long list of existing actions that violate the natural rights of common people and makes the unification and organization of all human beings necessary and proper. Here are some:

The orchestration of numerous wars for gain and profit.
The poisoning of humanity by way of depleted uranium munitions.
The genocide of people for political, ideological, or economic reasons.
The monopolization of communications to control information and minds.
The manufactured illusion of self-government when there is very little.
The manufactured illusion of freedom when there is very little.
The manufactured illusion of privacy when there is very little.
The manufacturing of illusions for control of various populations.
The deliberate manufacture and release of disease agents and organisms.
The deliberate distribution of “medications” designed to maim, kill, or control.
The suppression of important information regarding non-terrestrial life.
The corruption of systems like money, health care, food production, and entertainment for purposes of selfish gain or control.
The genetic re-engineering of destructive life forms for selfish gain or control.
The clandestine manufacture and distribution of illegal drugs for selfish gain or control.
The destructive manipulation of the natural environment that sustains all life.
The deliberate suppression of “free energy” technology that would improve the world.
Etc.

Those behind these violations of natural human rights do so willfully, criminally, and secretly. They represent but a tiny minority of the human population. The vast majority of humans have been fooled, tricked, deceived, dulled, lulled, purchased, coerced, or otherwise distracted from the truth of these violations against them by this tiny minority.

For these reasons, we, the people of this planet that is our only refuge and life-support system, do declare our intent to unite and organize in support of our natural rights and in opposition to any that would deny them.

=== End Declaration ===

Excellent Chicodoodoo

You got me to sign in again.
I will take off again, but I want to thank you with all my heart for this well thought-out declaration.

Yes, I do support this.

Bye for now,

jeanna