Bill Ryan's Mission and His Lunchbox, Sociopath du Jour, and Unicorn Urine

[christian]

Posted by Mike (here)
[W]hether you have government or not, whether you have one unified community or 1000 decentralized ones, someone somewhere (an authority of some sort, whether private or public) is always going to have to impose order by force in some situations..whether the agents of chaos come from within the community or outside of it. It's unavoidable.

I agree 100%. When I'm not writing, I'm actually in this very business of imposing order by force in my job as a nightclub bouncer. I'm not a government as I'm not financed by taxes, but voluntary contributions from my employer, and I don't initiate force. I merely observe that people obey the rules of my place of work, and I intervene if they don't. Like chopping wood, it's a satisfying job because I see the results immediately. When the party is over and people have had a good time and I stopped people with a bad attitude from disturbing the peace, it was a good day. I probably wouldn't do the job (as often) if I didn't need the money, but I do appreciate it not just for the money, but for the work itself. It's a good change from sitting at the laptop for years on end, and it gives me plenty of opportunities to practice what I preach, to protect the peace without initiating violence.

Posted by Mike (here)
And that's because human beings are often impulsive, unpredictable, anarchic, irrational, bitter, resentful, and jealous.. even in what appears to be a sort of utopian situation. […] Maybe there would be less of these things, but it would still exist.

I also think it's impossible to fully eliminate destructive tendencies in humans. The best possible scenario is to minimize these tendencies and their effects. I want to support healing and protection by treating people with empathy and respect, and by stepping in when someone initiates violence or breaks the rules of a community.

Posted by Mike (here)
Even in your model, people will still be scheming and cheating and seeking power over others.

From what I can see, the most effective way to gain power over others is through a legal monopoly on the use of force, i.e., government. There is no totalitarianism without government. In my eyes, finding ways to support others, protect peace, and establish a harmonic order without the initiation of coercion, i.e., without government, is a key challenge for humanity to make it to the next level. That's what I'm working on. I'll keep you updated

[Merkaba360]

I don't see how it would work to abolish big gov't. It doesn't abolish secret societies, break away civilizations, Apple, Tesla, etc. Smaller local communities defending their region might work well locally. But then who is going to deal with Tesla and their AI embedded in robots pouring out of factories. No small community and its militia has the power or authority to deal with that. Tesla/Space X would also create its own sovereign community in Texas and live under its own local rules and system. But it would advance in power way faster than our wholesome communities without a sea of engineers.

The secret societies or deep military groups already have Nukes, exotic secret weapons and anti gravity devices. It would be like declaring that we are all gonna form small decentralized communities across the planet and tell them they must not bother us. lol Yea right. I could argue that its better to keep huge populations and be a part of that monster, that way they have the increasingly more impossible task of mind controlling gigantic herds like the 350 million US population.

As much as id like many many smaller sovereign states, thats also easier targets , aka divide and conquer.

The answer is more like exposing the insane racket these huge gov'ts are running - which is starting to happen. That way the population stands up to enforce new methods to put an end to those rackets.

Just like AI is getting better than doctors at diagnosing disease, we need it to get better at diagnosing disease within the gov'ts than corrupt politicians. As well as discerning truth better than scientists, so its not so easy to put all their evil scientists on TV pretending to be scientific authority.

We are headed to the stars, so the massive organizations are likely needed and not going anywhere. ET disclosure could also one day change the game. I bet they have great advice on how to run huge organizations with limited corruption and making it run better for the whole.

Although I do think in america for example, the fed is going to lose power and the states and counties will gain more. So, in a way that is a step toward the smaller communities self governing with greater freedom to deal with their local problems. The Fed still must exist to deal with civil war, nukes, and all the massive problems.

[Mike]

Posted by christian (here)
I'll keep you updated

Cool, good luck with it! Appreciate the dialogue

[Raskolnikov]

Posted by christian (here)
There is no totalitarianism without government. In my eyes, finding ways to support others, protect peace, and establish a harmonic order without the initiation of coercion, i.e., without government, is a key challenge for humanity to make it to the next level. That's what I'm working on. I'll keep you updated

I’ve often thought the same thing. Which brings us back to the evolution of the individual. Maybe this society without government is really only attainable when each one of us first attains this self-mastery and cohesion from within. Which seems to coincide with your take Merkaba360:

Posted by Merkaba360 (here)
The greek philosophy debates on politics can be interesting, but I see the real potential for upgrades and stepping closer toward freedom and utopia coming from a consciousness upgrade and rapid tech advancement. Both are changing faster than ever and will plow right over these stupid government officials desires in many ways.

We desperately need a perception upgrade. I dont care if it comes suddenly to 100s of millions from reaching critical mass, or AI decoding the brain and peeling back some filters.

I’m all on board for the consciousness upgrade but you place much more faith in AI than I do at this point, this point being while some nefarious group still has it’s bloody talons in the majority of governments around the world. I picture this upgrade manifesting more like a 100th monkey effect, soon we’ll all be soaking our sweet potatoes. But one thing’s for sure, here in the states, the people were willing to die and/or go to prison fighting both taxes and licenses, the first because the people never consented to give such power and authority to government, and the second because it was viewed as the government taking your rights and then selling them back to you. Safety’s all fine and good, but look where we are now when selling raw milk or practicing medicine with an expired license will land you in jail. That’s an extent of control never intended, and never agreed to, by the people. And yet it’s been so crammed through, the opposition so repeatedly squashed by our crooked courts, that most today have absolutely no idea that this is even the case. The youth today has the memory of a goldfish, they’re not going to remember what happened last week let alone 100 years ago. So new generations accept outrageous taxes and exorbitant yearly fees to acquire the rights from government to do anything. This is the current threat from authority, their ability to play the long game. Educate three generations of kids and look where we are.

But thanks again for the thoughtful dialogue, and everyone else for the great insights as well. You’ve done an excellent job of questioning and dissecting some of the finer details. I could never stomach politics, especially after getting a crash course from the Greeks and Romans, sounds about as fun as the Old Testament, nothing but betrayal, incestuous backstabbing, and bloody sacrifice. Has anything really changed since those times? No wonder I turned to art. Which brings me to your aside Michel which I thought rather profound:

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
(It is of no use “spinning” our sins. Fleeing to look the other way while busy “saving our souls” (as I wrote above), however primary may be its importance. Our duty to understand, as an intellectual, truth – coincides with our pledge to feel the other’s anguish and sorrow – and with our need to caress the beauty of the body. It is one thing – and that is why an artist’s, a musician’s, a dancer’s, a poet’s creativity can only be sane when they come together.)

Though you also allude to the physical, I find the metaphysical more powerful. It hints of having empathy and being able to feel one’s true connection not only to the other but to everything, of turning Jung’s collective unconscious to a collective consciousness which we will all knowingly not only share but be unwilling, be unable, to violate. Because I’m not sure how much longer I can put up with our current forms of government which steal the people's hard earned money by calling it taxes or licenses, then use this stolen money to bomb other countries then feed it all back to the sedated masses on the tv like another episode of Neflix, brought to you by Blackrock:

“To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century [1851]

[christian]

Posted by Merkaba360 (here)
The Fed still must exist to deal with civil war, nukes, and all the massive problems.

"Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."
—Gandalf the Grey

[Mike]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Merkaba360 (here)
The Fed still must exist to deal with civil war, nukes, and all the massive problems.

"Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."
—Gandalf the Grey

I think it's both (..if I may be so bold as to disagree with the great Gandolf)

So what does happen if civil war breaks out in a country with no government? I think that's a pretty good question!

[Raskolnikov]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Merkaba360 (here)
The Fed still must exist to deal with civil war, nukes, and all the massive problems.

"Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."
—Gandalf the Grey

I think it's both (..if I may be so bold as to disagree with the great Gandolf)

So what does happen if civil war breaks out in a country with no government? I think that's a pretty good question!

And yet how does a "civil" war (the irony) break out at all in a country without government? Civil is defined as: a) of or relating to citizens, b) of or relating to the state or it citizenry. And then also as: a) civilized, b) adequate in courtesy and politeness (hence the irony). So there's no such thing as a civil war without government. Which came first, war or government? It's like an onion - layers upon layers...

[Mike]

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Merkaba360 (here)
The Fed still must exist to deal with civil war, nukes, and all the massive problems.

"Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."
—Gandalf the Grey

I think it's both (..if I may be so bold as to disagree with the great Gandolf)

So what does happen if civil war breaks out in a country with no government? I think that's a pretty good question!

And yet how does a "civil" war (the irony) break out at all in a country without government? Civil is defined as: a) of or relating to citizens, b) of or relating to the state or it citizenry. And then also as: a) civilized, b) adequate in courtesy and politeness (hence the irony). So there's no such thing as a civil war without government. Which came first, war or government? It's like an onion - layers upon layers...

No, not very civil, is it?

When no one is holding a position of power within a country or community, it merely leaves a vacuum that will eventually need to be filled. And it's just because humans are hierarchal by nature. They've been that way for millions of years. It's how we orient ourselves, for better or worse. Civil wars would inevitably erupt in countries with no central government simply because it's just a matter of time before someone attempted to fill that power void.

A war would break out to prevent the power grab. And if the power grab was successful, more war would eventually break out to unseat the victors. Disagreements would emerge in all the chaos, and the community would become more and more fractionated as a result, just increasing the potential for more warring factions and more civil war.

While it's true that there's no chance for authoritarianism without government, there's no chance for order either, far as I can tell.

[Raskolnikov]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Merkaba360 (here)
The Fed still must exist to deal with civil war, nukes, and all the massive problems.

"Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."
—Gandalf the Grey

I think it's both (..if I may be so bold as to disagree with the great Gandolf)

So what does happen if civil war breaks out in a country with no government? I think that's a pretty good question!

And yet how does a "civil" war (the irony) break out at all in a country without government? Civil is defined as: a) of or relating to citizens, b) of or relating to the state or it citizenry. And then also as: a) civilized, b) adequate in courtesy and politeness (hence the irony). So there's no such thing as a civil war without government. Which came first, war or government? It's like an onion - layers upon layers...

No, not very civil, is it?

When no one is holding a position of power within a country or community, it merely leaves a vacuum that will eventually need to be filled. And it's just because humans are hierarchal by nature. They've been that way for millions of years. It's how we orient ourselves, for better or worse. Civil wars would inevitably erupt in countries with no central government simply because it's just a matter of time before someone attempted to fill that power void.

A war would break out to prevent the power grab. And if the power grab was successful, more war would eventually break out to unseat the victors. Disagreements would emerge in all the chaos, and the community would become more and more fractionated as a result, just increasing the potential for more warring factions and more civil war.

While it's true that there's no chance for authoritarianism without government, there's no chance for order either, far as I can tell.

But I think your breakdown is making a couple illogical assumptions Mike. For one, your hierarchical theory falls back on the "survival of the fittest" line of competition that we've all been sold. Whereas I believe we're spawn from a more cooperation race that used to look at life the way the Indians did, that if it wasn't good for the next seven generations then it wasn't good for anyone. Because how could you not if you're a red blooded human being? And you know you can't back up your statement that it's "been that way for millions of years." I don't believe we spawn from war, just like I don't believe we were born meat eaters, just another lie we've been force fed, like taxes and licenses that we didn't resist enough, that the authorities and billboards eventually duped everyone into believing. Nothing but spells cast upon on unwitting, unsuspecting, and ultilmately complacent and unaware population. If we've learned anything from Bill Ryan's years of public service it's that these people are playing the long game. And the real question is always going to boil down to, as Jerry Seinfeld would always say, "Who are these people?"

[Merkaba360]

There may be no huge totalitarian beast without big gov't. But, "Madmax" or "Revolution" tv series scenarios would be pretty terrible too. It seems the most highly evolved races would be both anarchy and the ultimate social cooperation. So, when I see people debating for an anarchical society, I just don't see how we are mature enough for that yet.

I would argue that the current society is exactly suitable to that society. Didnt Buddha supposedly say something about tilting his head back and laughing as everything is perfect/appropriate how it is. yet, I would add that once that society has evolved and ready for the next stage/system, there may be a period where the old guard is able to hang on to power and keep the old outdated system in place for a bit longer when the people have already outgrown it. I think Iran is one of the best current examples of this as i know some persians and they are very bright. It could very well be very big powers are holding back Iran (I hear possibly the british/euro empire put their leaders in place) and NK populace being held back by the red dragon.

If we were overly ripe for an upgrade in gov't it would be here already. Although, maybe we are reaching that point with the acceleration of everything and are debating about what our gov't will soon morph into over the next few decades.

I dont know that i put faith into AI either, I just see incredible power and potential. My programmer friend was talking about how any of us can build our own PC AI system. If deep seek was possible with such efficiency then cant we all have AIs on our PC at home as powerful as say ChatGPT 4 in the near future. what happens when those software engineers fix the algorithms to remove the political correctness and other governors keeping AI from being honest as well as hiding certain data from us. Maybe there are already geeks with their own unfiltered AI's quietly doing things we cant do.

Couldnt 1000 geeks then join AI forces and do things we can't yet imagine. If some of the ingenious breakthrus in AI are discovered by big tech but they refuse to go public and let us have it, the knowledge is then in the collective mind of humanity. It then becomes easier for geeks not working for big tech to figure it out.

If we really are dealing with high tech ET/interdimensional A-holes, then we absolutely want the power of billions of people working together to defend earth. Exposing them or black magic humans would help a lot to bring us all together to direct our efforts at countering them. Its harder fighting the boogeyman cuz most dont believe in the boogeyman.

I think there is a decent chance that natural disasters will force us to be more community oriented and could lead toward more local power and big gov't and corps losing power. If they are so greedy and ineffective to help us during such events, people will see that they are selfish entities who we cant rely on for safety and having our needs met in all situations.

[Mike]

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Merkaba360 (here)
The Fed still must exist to deal with civil war, nukes, and all the massive problems.

"Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."
—Gandalf the Grey

I think it's both (..if I may be so bold as to disagree with the great Gandolf)

So what does happen if civil war breaks out in a country with no government? I think that's a pretty good question!

And yet how does a "civil" war (the irony) break out at all in a country without government? Civil is defined as: a) of or relating to citizens, b) of or relating to the state or it citizenry. And then also as: a) civilized, b) adequate in courtesy and politeness (hence the irony). So there's no such thing as a civil war without government. Which came first, war or government? It's like an onion - layers upon layers...

No, not very civil, is it?

When no one is holding a position of power within a country or community, it merely leaves a vacuum that will eventually need to be filled. And it's just because humans are hierarchal by nature. They've been that way for millions of years. It's how we orient ourselves, for better or worse. Civil wars would inevitably erupt in countries with no central government simply because it's just a matter of time before someone attempted to fill that power void.

A war would break out to prevent the power grab. And if the power grab was successful, more war would eventually break out to unseat the victors. Disagreements would emerge in all the chaos, and the community would become more and more fractionated as a result, just increasing the potential for more warring factions and more civil war.

While it's true that there's no chance for authoritarianism without government, there's no chance for order either, far as I can tell.

But I think your breakdown is making a couple illogical assumptions Mike. For one, your hierarchical theory falls back on the "survival of the fittest" line of competition that we've all been sold. Whereas I believe we're spawn from a more cooperation race that used to look at life the way the Indians did, that if it wasn't good for the next seven generations then it wasn't good for anyone. Because how could you not if you're a red blooded human being? And you know you can't back up your statement that it's "been that way for millions of years." I don't believe we spawn from war, just like I don't believe we were born meat eaters, just another lie we've been force fed, like taxes and licenses that we didn't resist enough, that the authorities and billboards eventually duped everyone into believing. Nothing but spells cast upon on unwitting, unsuspecting, and ultilmately complacent and unaware population. If we've learned anything from Bill Ryan's years of public service it's that these people are playing the long game. And the real question is always going to boil down to, as Jerry Seinfeld would always say, "Who are these people?"

Well, it's not a theory! Hierarchies have been around since human beings have been on the earth, which dates back millions of years. They've actually been around far longer than that. Jordan Peterson often gives the example of the lobster when discussing hierarchies, because they've been around so long (something like 400 million years). His point is that hierarchy is not a symptom of culture or capitalism, but is in fact a natural condition of the planet and many of it's inhabitants (mammals, some reptiles, and some aquatic invertebrates too). It's built into our biology. Utopians often assume hierarchy is merely an expression of power and corruption, and can be flattened out in favor of some kind of socialist paradise. But it never, ever works.

Prior to modern civilization, it was survival of the fittest for the most part. But now heirarchies typically reward the most competent among us, not the most dominant (yes, and the most cunning and corrupt in some cases too).

The Native American Indian tribes were hierarchical too btw. Hierarchy typically fosters cooperation, it doesn't discourage it. Which is the point I'm driving at here. If you simply do away with the central hierarchy of any given country or society (government) you're annihilating a whole bunch of load bearing walls. Chaos will ensue. Government serves all the purposes we can think of and all the ones we can't, and can't be done away with in favor of private industry alone for many of the reasons listed here and many more we haven't.

One can make an intellectual argument for doing away with government, and it might be convincing on paper. Socialism sounds great on paper too. Some people make the same argument about religion as well, which has been the central and unifying hierarchy for thousands of years. It sounds convincing. Surely we could do without it, yeah? But just like a country with no government, all it does is leave a void to be filled. Doing away with Christianity has left us with woke Marxists as our current gods..they've filled the void, and we've seen how disastrous that has been. But that's a whole other topic.

[gord]

Mike, christian... the government/no-government/some-where-in-between problem has been around forever and will probably never be satisfactorily solved (but we'll all keep trying anyway).

From Federalist Papers No. 51 (1788):

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

[Raskolnikov]

Posted by Mike (here)
Well, it's not a theory! Hierarchies have been around since human beings have been on the earth, which dates back millions of years. They've actually been around far longer than that. Jordan Peterson often gives the example of the lobster when discussing hierarchies, because they've been around so long (something like 400 million years). His point is that hierarchy is not a symptom of culture or capitalism, but is in fact a natural condition of the planet and many of it's inhabitants (mammals, some reptiles, and some aquatic invertebrates too). It's built into our biology. Utopians often assume hierarchy is merely an expression of power and corruption, and can be flattened out in favor of some kind of socialist paradise. But it never, ever works.

Prior to modern civilization, it was survival of the fittest for the most part. But now heirarchies typically reward the most competent among us, not the most dominant (yes, and the most cunning and corrupt in some cases too).

The Native American Indian tribes were hierarchical too btw. Hierarchy typically fosters cooperation, it doesn't discourage it. Which is the point I'm driving at here. If you simply do away with the central hierarchy of any given country or society (government) you're annihilating a whole bunch of load bearing walls. Chaos will ensue. Government serves all the purposes we can think of and all the ones we can't, and can't be done away with in favor of private industry alone for many of the reasons listed here and many more we haven't.

One can make an intellectual argument for doing away with government, and it might be convincing on paper. Socialism sounds great on paper too. Some people make the same argument about religion as well, which has been the central and unifying hierarchy for thousands of years. It sounds convincing. Surely we could do without it, yeah? But just like a country with no government, all it does is leave a void to be filled. Doing away with Christianity has left us with woke Marxists as our current gods..they've filled the void, and we've seen how disastrous that has been. But that's a whole other topic.

I get your take on hierarchy. We all have to work together and even in a merit based society a sense of order must be established and so naturally it may appear to be a power pecking order but maybe it could simply be one’s area of expertise and his/her experience in a said field of endeavor for groupings within society. But the question remains: is government ultimately needed when groups come together? Idk, but I want to side against it for the pure fact that I want government out of my life and because of the mess they’ve created for us currently.

Not trying to convince anyone of anything here, just trying to get to the truth. I’m still not buying the survival of the fittest because if I remember right Evolution still is a theory and the missing link has never been found. Even Lucy was a fraud. There’s been so much fraud and cover-up in the fields of anthropology and archeology how can we trust anything we read on the subjects, meaning very important pieces of our history and evolution as a species are missing. Why such draconian control of the narrative? I’ve read so many books telling of discoveries in all branches of science that would completely refute the garbage they’re still force-feeding the children and Harvard professors alike.

Slightly off topic, but I feel an important piece of the puzzle to consider when discussing survival of the fittest and what’s built into our biology. We are told Darwin was right in his theory of evolution, that descending from a common ancestor, gradual genetic changes from mutations within our DNA is the cause and effect of our evolution as a species. And yet the studies by mainly Russian scientists in David Wilcock’s The Source Field Investigations uproots his theory of evolution and places it firmly back in the creation camp. Just one example: Dr. Peter Gariaev sent a green nonburning laser through salamander eggs, and then redirected the beam into frog eggs. Though these salamanders hatched from the genetic material of a frog, they lived normal lives and could breed with other salamanders to produce healthy offspring. So many amazing breakthroughs in that book. He did humanity a real service putting that into print.

So I’m not buying survival of the fittest and natural selection anymore. They’re right up there with the theory of scarcity, that everything is finite and will ultimately run out because too many humans inhabit this planet. In this model, survival of the fittest and competition make sense, you’re competing with your neighbor for survival. But it’s all been concocted. It’s all cleverly collected data as Mark Twain so aptly stated: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” It’s interesting that our written record only records governments that failed and has never provided a real success story, a government that was beneficial for everyone within its sphere of influence, one based upon cooperation instead of competition for diminishing resources. Maybe time to rethink everything we know about our current forms of government…

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries *by a government*, which we might expect in a country *without government*, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Thomas Paine

[Mike]

Posted by gord (here)
Mike, christian... the government/no-government/some-where-in-between problem has been around forever and will probably never be satisfactorily solved (but we'll all keep trying anyway).

From Federalist Papers No. 51 (1788):

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I like that quote alot! I'm impressed and annoyed all at once; impressed because he summed it all up in a couple sentences, and annoyed because I haven't done that yet

If I had to offer a pithy slogan of my own, it might go something like this: No form of government will ever be perfect, but it will be far less imperfect than any society without one.

I doubt anyone will be emblazoning their pillows with it, but it's the best I got.

The realist will arrange society in a way that accommodates reality as it really is, and the utopian will arrange society in a way that accommodates a reality they wish existed. I'm utopian in my heart to some degree - which is why I can empathize with that approach - and a realist in my head. While it's true that you cannot allow the head to infect the heart in certain matters, you can also not allow the heart to infect the head in others. Structuring society requires a sober, head-based approach. Which is why female leadership is almost always doomed to fail

[edina]

The people who framed the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and debated in the Federalist paper, spent decades having conversations similar to the one here. Thanks for the mention of the Federalist Papers, gord.

I sometimes think to myself, why reinvent the wheel. We don't have to keep trying to redo the hard work that's already been done.

They spent tremendous thought and effort to try to come up with a way that people could govern themselves while acknowledging human reality, and built a multi-layered system of checks and balances for self-governance.

The only way that Public Sovereignty works is if people take personal responsibility for themselves and their own behavior. This was once common knowledge. I think it will become common knowledge again. And when it does, people will create a culture that supports that process.

That will be the turn around for us.

[Mike]

Posted by edina (here)
The people who framed the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and debated in the Federalist paper, spent decades having conversations similar to the one here. Thanks for the mention of the Federalist Papers, gord.

I sometimes think to myself, why reinvent the wheel. We don't have to keep trying to redo the hard work that's already been done.

They spent tremendous thought and effort to try to come up with a way that people could govern themselves while acknowledging human reality, and built a multi-layered system of checks and balances for self-governance.

The only way that Public Sovereignty works is if people take personal responsibility for themselves and their own behavior. This was once common knowledge. I think it will become common knowledge again. And when it does, people will create a culture that supports that process.

That will be the turn around for us.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=barWV7RWkq0

[Mike]

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
Well, it's not a theory! Hierarchies have been around since human beings have been on the earth, which dates back millions of years. They've actually been around far longer than that. Jordan Peterson often gives the example of the lobster when discussing hierarchies, because they've been around so long (something like 400 million years). His point is that hierarchy is not a symptom of culture or capitalism, but is in fact a natural condition of the planet and many of it's inhabitants (mammals, some reptiles, and some aquatic invertebrates too). It's built into our biology. Utopians often assume hierarchy is merely an expression of power and corruption, and can be flattened out in favor of some kind of socialist paradise. But it never, ever works.

Prior to modern civilization, it was survival of the fittest for the most part. But now heirarchies typically reward the most competent among us, not the most dominant (yes, and the most cunning and corrupt in some cases too).

The Native American Indian tribes were hierarchical too btw. Hierarchy typically fosters cooperation, it doesn't discourage it. Which is the point I'm driving at here. If you simply do away with the central hierarchy of any given country or society (government) you're annihilating a whole bunch of load bearing walls. Chaos will ensue. Government serves all the purposes we can think of and all the ones we can't, and can't be done away with in favor of private industry alone for many of the reasons listed here and many more we haven't.

One can make an intellectual argument for doing away with government, and it might be convincing on paper. Socialism sounds great on paper too. Some people make the same argument about religion as well, which has been the central and unifying hierarchy for thousands of years. It sounds convincing. Surely we could do without it, yeah? But just like a country with no government, all it does is leave a void to be filled. Doing away with Christianity has left us with woke Marxists as our current gods..they've filled the void, and we've seen how disastrous that has been. But that's a whole other topic.

I get your take on hierarchy. We all have to work together and even in a merit based society a sense of order must be established and so naturally it may appear to be a power pecking order but maybe it could simply be one’s area of expertise and his/her experience in a said field of endeavor for groupings within society. But the question remains: is government ultimately needed when groups come together? Idk, but I want to side against it for the pure fact that I want government out of my life and because of the mess they’ve created for us currently.

Not trying to convince anyone of anything here, just trying to get to the truth. I’m still not buying the survival of the fittest because if I remember right Evolution still is a theory and the missing link has never been found. Even Lucy was a fraud. There’s been so much fraud and cover-up in the fields of anthropology and archeology how can we trust anything we read on the subjects, meaning very important pieces of our history and evolution as a species are missing. Why such draconian control of the narrative? I’ve read so many books telling of discoveries in all branches of science that would completely refute the garbage they’re still force-feeding the children and Harvard professors alike.

Slightly off topic, but I feel an important piece of the puzzle to consider when discussing survival of the fittest and what’s built into our biology. We are told Darwin was right in his theory of evolution, that descending from a common ancestor, gradual genetic changes from mutations within our DNA is the cause and effect of our evolution as a species. And yet the studies by mainly Russian scientists in David Wilcock’s The Source Field Investigations uproots his theory of evolution and places it firmly back in the creation camp. Just one example: Dr. Peter Gariaev sent a green nonburning laser through salamander eggs, and then redirected the beam into frog eggs. Though these salamanders hatched from the genetic material of a frog, they lived normal lives and could breed with other salamanders to produce healthy offspring. So many amazing breakthroughs in that book. He did humanity a real service putting that into print.

So I’m not buying survival of the fittest and natural selection anymore. They’re right up there with the theory of scarcity, that everything is finite and will ultimately run out because too many humans inhabit this planet. In this model, survival of the fittest and competition make sense, you’re competing with your neighbor for survival. But it’s all been concocted. It’s all cleverly collected data as Mark Twain so aptly stated: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” It’s interesting that our written record only records governments that failed and has never provided a real success story, a government that was beneficial for everyone within its sphere of influence, one based upon cooperation instead of competition for diminishing resources. Maybe time to rethink everything we know about our current forms of government…

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries *by a government*, which we might expect in a country *without government*, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Thomas Paine

You've said alot there.

But before I say anything in response it might be best if you outlined exactly what you mean by a government based on cooperation instead of competition. I guess what I'm wondering is: how is what you're describing any different than communism?

[Raskolnikov]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
Well, it's not a theory! Hierarchies have been around since human beings have been on the earth, which dates back millions of years. They've actually been around far longer than that. Jordan Peterson often gives the example of the lobster when discussing hierarchies, because they've been around so long (something like 400 million years). His point is that hierarchy is not a symptom of culture or capitalism, but is in fact a natural condition of the planet and many of it's inhabitants (mammals, some reptiles, and some aquatic invertebrates too). It's built into our biology. Utopians often assume hierarchy is merely an expression of power and corruption, and can be flattened out in favor of some kind of socialist paradise. But it never, ever works.

Prior to modern civilization, it was survival of the fittest for the most part. But now heirarchies typically reward the most competent among us, not the most dominant (yes, and the most cunning and corrupt in some cases too).

The Native American Indian tribes were hierarchical too btw. Hierarchy typically fosters cooperation, it doesn't discourage it. Which is the point I'm driving at here. If you simply do away with the central hierarchy of any given country or society (government) you're annihilating a whole bunch of load bearing walls. Chaos will ensue. Government serves all the purposes we can think of and all the ones we can't, and can't be done away with in favor of private industry alone for many of the reasons listed here and many more we haven't.

One can make an intellectual argument for doing away with government, and it might be convincing on paper. Socialism sounds great on paper too. Some people make the same argument about religion as well, which has been the central and unifying hierarchy for thousands of years. It sounds convincing. Surely we could do without it, yeah? But just like a country with no government, all it does is leave a void to be filled. Doing away with Christianity has left us with woke Marxists as our current gods..they've filled the void, and we've seen how disastrous that has been. But that's a whole other topic.

I get your take on hierarchy. We all have to work together and even in a merit based society a sense of order must be established and so naturally it may appear to be a power pecking order but maybe it could simply be one’s area of expertise and his/her experience in a said field of endeavor for groupings within society. But the question remains: is government ultimately needed when groups come together? Idk, but I want to side against it for the pure fact that I want government out of my life and because of the mess they’ve created for us currently.

Not trying to convince anyone of anything here, just trying to get to the truth. I’m still not buying the survival of the fittest because if I remember right Evolution still is a theory and the missing link has never been found. Even Lucy was a fraud. There’s been so much fraud and cover-up in the fields of anthropology and archeology how can we trust anything we read on the subjects, meaning very important pieces of our history and evolution as a species are missing. Why such draconian control of the narrative? I’ve read so many books telling of discoveries in all branches of science that would completely refute the garbage they’re still force-feeding the children and Harvard professors alike.

Slightly off topic, but I feel an important piece of the puzzle to consider when discussing survival of the fittest and what’s built into our biology. We are told Darwin was right in his theory of evolution, that descending from a common ancestor, gradual genetic changes from mutations within our DNA is the cause and effect of our evolution as a species. And yet the studies by mainly Russian scientists in David Wilcock’s The Source Field Investigations uproots his theory of evolution and places it firmly back in the creation camp. Just one example: Dr. Peter Gariaev sent a green nonburning laser through salamander eggs, and then redirected the beam into frog eggs. Though these salamanders hatched from the genetic material of a frog, they lived normal lives and could breed with other salamanders to produce healthy offspring. So many amazing breakthroughs in that book. He did humanity a real service putting that into print.

So I’m not buying survival of the fittest and natural selection anymore. They’re right up there with the theory of scarcity, that everything is finite and will ultimately run out because too many humans inhabit this planet. In this model, survival of the fittest and competition make sense, you’re competing with your neighbor for survival. But it’s all been concocted. It’s all cleverly collected data as Mark Twain so aptly stated: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” It’s interesting that our written record only records governments that failed and has never provided a real success story, a government that was beneficial for everyone within its sphere of influence, one based upon cooperation instead of competition for diminishing resources. Maybe time to rethink everything we know about our current forms of government…

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries *by a government*, which we might expect in a country *without government*, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Thomas Paine

You've said alot there.

But before I say anything in response it might be best if you outlined exactly what you mean by a government based on cooperation instead of competition. I guess what I'm wondering is: how is what you're describing any different than communism?

Not communism. On an esoteric level I understand that nobody really owns anything, yet on a practical level private property is an integral component of a free society.

“Every man has a property in his own person. This no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his... The great and chief end therefore, of mens uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.” John Locke, "A Treatise Concerning Civil Government"

It has nothing to do with the collectivism practiced in communism or socialism. And I certainly would not want the state in control of everything.

Since this thread has morphed into a hypothetical discussion of the pros and cons of government in general, I’ll say it circles back again to the evolution of the individual in order to achieve such a beneficial society where everyone truly works for the greater good, not the greater good spoken of by the forked tongued officials today:

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Daniel Webster

but a real vision based on abundance and not competition stemming from scarcity. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not against competition that inspires new ideas, that’s healthy and necessary in any society. But competition based upon scarcity is unhealthy because we live an abundant world yet have been told otherwise by this created and perceived scarcity. A truly cooperative society would stem from abundance, like when we tap back into free energy systems and everyone can finally take a breath and discover their reason for being, discover the true laws of nature and use them to the highest advantage for all, no longer working dead end jobs just to survive, where the bankers who fund all sides of war are a thing of the past. Yes, maybe we all first need to be angels, god knows the goons have turned enough into angels for trying to bring such systems to light. But I think it’s coming.

[onawah]

Back in 2020, there was a thread entitled "What's the Difference Between Socialism and Communism?". I posted the following there:

Posted by onawah (here)
Socialism is what the matriarchal cultures of old practiced, as Mariah Gimbutus has revealed through her considerable research.
(See: http://www.carnaval.com/goddess/ )
It seems very natural that a society should be based on the assurance that everyone's basic needs be met, and that that is the primary goal of a society.
Such societies were peaceful, non-competitive, cooperative and did not wage war.
Those were much simpler times, assuredly, while these times are much more complex.
But what we can come away with after acquainting ourselves with such a culture is the realization that humankind really is capable of forming such societies, even though we have been conditioned into thinking that we are inherently incapable of such peaceful co-existence, and therefore must be ruled.

Following the first page of the site about Marija Gimbutus's work is copied:

"Marija Gimbutas (1921-1994), former Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at UCLA, contributed to what is considered to be one of the most significant academic watershed moments in women’s studies with her archeological and philosophical work on Neolithic culture and religion. A Lithuanian-American archeologist, she is best known for her research into the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of “Old Europe,” a term she introduced.

Old Europe referred to both the geographical area and social structures that existed before the Indo-European influence, and was based on her work on the cross-disciplines of archaeological artifacts, linguistics, ethnography and folklore that led her to posit the thesis that the European prehistoric culture was female-centered and worshiped a Mother Goddess as giver of all life. Gimbutas’ hypothosis that the Kurgan invasions brought an end to Old Europe and introduced new Indo-European languages to Europe was viewed with skepticism by many scholars in her time; in recent years her Kurgan theory was given support through advances in DNA testing.

In Gimbutas’ last book The Civilization of the Goddess, which synthesizes the work and theses of her previous books (Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe 1974/1982 and The Language of the Goddess 1989/1991), she wrote, “The primordial deity for our Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestors was female, reflecting the sovereignty of motherhood. In fact, there are no images that have been found of a Father God throughout the prehistoric record. Paleolithic and Neolithic symbols and images cluster around a self-generating Goddess and her basic functions as Giver-of-Life, Wielder-of-Death, and as Regeneratrix.” Further in Civilization of the Goddess Gimbutas outlines the symbolic understanding Old European societies had of the universe and the divine. She wrote, “The multiple categories, functions, and symbols used by prehistoric peoples to express the Great Mystery are all aspects of the unbroken unity of one deity, a Goddess who is ultimately Nature herself.” For a complete list of her publications see the Marija Gimbutas bibliography.

Her discoveries took on great symbolic importance for feminists across varied disciplines who found, in her vision of a peaceful, egalitarian, nature-revering society, a sense of hope for the future based on this foundation in the distant past. Unintended to her, Marija Gimbutas’ impact was so great that it reached beyond the scholarly community and helped fuel the women’s movement in society at large. Though scholars on methodological and ideological grounds have challenged her work, this very work fueled the initial tangible, scientific, and material support for the hypotheses that cultures existed wherein patriarchy did not rule, war and violence was not assumed as a cultural norm, and that there were, in fact, egalitarian social structures. In honor of her contribution to the mutual enrichment of cultures for universal understanding and peace, UNESCO designated Gimbutas among its milestone anniversary commemorations for 2021 in observance of her centenary year.

The Marija Gimbutas papers are held at OPUS Archives on Pacifica Graduate Institute’s Ladera Lane campus. Gimbutas’ personal library is also held by OPUS in The Joseph Campbell and Marija Gimbutas Library, located at the Lambert Road campus. The Campbell and Gimbutas Library is open to the public by appointment, or without appointment Sundays from 2:00-4:00pm."

*******************
There seems to be one vital omission of discussion in this current thread "Bill Ryan's Mission and His Lunchbox" etc., which is: how are cultures different when the Divine Feminine is in the ascendant; when cooperation instead of competition is the rule?

More on that subject in the 4 page thread started back in 2018 entitled "The Divine Feminine Re-emerging and the New Paradigm":
My post there with more about Marija Gimbutas follows.
And Gimbutus is a very good place to start if you want to know about matriarchy, however impossible and insignificant such a thing may seem after so many centuries of patriarchy.
(Ironically, it certainly seems like more than a decade since I wrote the following back in 2020....)
Something from the following I will reword, and say I think that it's natural for patriarchy to be predominant at times and matriarchy at others, as many sources have outlined including the ancient Hindu cosmology.
But it does seems that in this low point of the current Kali Yuga era, patriarchy has been the means by which destruction has been implemented by negative forces, whether by ETs or Archons, in order to gain power over and bring ruination to the planet and to humanity.
(The psychic Gigi Young has also talked quite knowledgably about what happens when patriarchy and when matriarchy is ascendant and the differences between the Divine Feminine and the Divine Masculine in various of her talks, largely based on Theosophy and Anthroposophy here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...gi-Young-Talks ) :

Posted by onawah (here)
I LOVE Gimbutas's work! She practically rewrote history, and makes so much sense, though of course, her contribution has been vastly underrated and unrecognized.
I don't think patriarchy is natural to the human race, I think it's been imposed on us by the Reptilians, via the Annunaki, and her work supports that premise.
Thanks for adding her work to this thread, EFO.
For anyone who isn't familiar with her, she is similar to Z. Sitchin in the way of re-writing history, only none of her work was channeled, but was impeccably researched and documented.

Posted by EFO (here)
Bumping...and bringing in my small male-ish contribution

Interesting thread to read,but there are missing pieces...lost in time by politics and politicians/historians/clerics and other low grade entities,if I may say so.

When I was in primary school,in History manual there was a lesson,long enough for me to understand it at that time and no action to attract my attention,where was detailed how Matriarhat was in Neolithic and was supposed to be a peaceful society and describing how it was in those times and after that lesson the history lessons real were beginning.I don't remember what was written,only what I wrote.Sorry.Why I have this memory over years,I don't know.

Marija Gimbutas surfaced by her work a lot of artifacts proving that at specific time in history there was a women centered civilization.
The World of the Goddess - Marija Gimbutas
"An absorbing view of the culture, religious beliefs, symbolism and mythology of the prehistoric, pre-patriarchal cultures of Old Europe, who revered and celebrated the Great Goddess of Life, Death, and Regeneration in all her many forms, of plants, of stone, of animals and humans, by the scholar who has made the exploration of these cultures her life work.... The program is produced by William Free, producer of the acclaimed television series with Joseph Campbell, "Transformations of Myth through Time."

On Gimbutas:

Marija Gimbutas was a Lithuanian-American archeologist known for her research into the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of "Old Europe", a term she introduced. Her works published between 1946 and 1971 introduced new views by combining traditional spadework with linguistics and mythological interpretation."
One more thing to add:Maria Bitoi from OP is Romanian.

[Mike]

Nat that's all made up nonsense