This one is good! And made me laugh at myself. Ya got me. I'm a hider. A hermit. And a prepper. You are so right though. We really need each other. I'm glad someone else tried that chicken sandwich thing so I don't have to. That is totally something I would try. 🤣
Thanks. For 5 years I did not go to church, but this Sunday I went again. Not for the service, but for the people. It is good to be among others. To my surprise, we agreed on quite a few things, and no one brought up the fact that all of them are jabbed and I am not. I think everyone is over that now. It think most realize the govts fooled them. I stopped hoarding, only have a limited stash in case I get sick. I am still thinking of buying some kind of stove I can cook on in case of an emergency, since the hurricane last year, but since I am not an open-fire person, I think I will skip that as well. This was the first time we here got off the grid for 4 days in the 20 years I live here. Not worth taking the risk of putting my house on fire!
I grew up on a small farm in the 60s and 70s, and it was a horror. My childhood felt like children were born to work: after school and homework came farm work, seven days a week. Only on Sunday afternoons in winter did we have any time off. My youth was like hell to me. It’s not that my family were sadists, but every pair of hands was needed to keep the farm going. In summer, the days were long, from five in the morning until ten at night. Retreating into some kind of subsistence farming is typically a stupid, nonsensical idea dreamed up by big-city dwellers. They have no idea what kind of constantly changing hordes of pests and plant diseases are waiting for them
At my age, in 10 years I may be looking up at the ceiling of my coffin wondering what kinds of weeds I am supporting. If I was a lot younger, then many decisions would have to be considered. Living in an apartment, prepping is quite limited. It makes little sense for me.
It is inevitable that our silly government is going to collapse and go bonkers trying to keep itself in power as its corruption is now boiling over on all fronts. What happens then? Who really knows. For me, it is no time to worry. For those younger...they may be in for the ride of their lives. The rebuild will take generations.
I am not as far down the line (in my late 50s) as you, but we're all in the same line.
But what you say speaks to the larger ethos of this whole project. It will truly take generations, whether it is to build, to rebuild, or to undo the horror that has been built. Each one of us should not expect to sit in the shade of the trees we plant. It is enough to do the planting, and to pass the task on. The only way that the forest can exist is if we start planting.
1) At 75 years of age, I have been pushed/pulled back to as close to alone as I imagine most Americans ever get. It is tough but I am tired of dealing with assholes...
2) Humans lived and survived as a species for millennia with nothing but stone, bone and wooden tools, animal skins and sinews, gathered nuts, berries and tubers and fire; far longer than we have depended on agriculture, let alone industry...
1. I hear you. But why should that mean complete isolation. We can still find our tribe. Indeed, you and I are talking right now!
2. Yes, and life expectancy was 30 years if you were lucky. There is wisdom to be gained from some of the lifeways of our Paleolithic ancestors. However, I am not sure we want to actually go back there.
1)Yes, we are talking but here where I live real human contact is slim and infrequent. I often go as long as two weeks between substantive, face-to-face conversations. I have been looking for my tribe for 75 years and they haven't showed up yet...
2) Give me the choice between Paleolithic lifeways and living under a contemporary, totalitarian regime and I'll gladly opt to be a hunter-gatherer...
I like human contact, I just don't like pretending when everyone starts talking about viruses, government and all the things I don't subcribe to. I am having more human contact recently than in the past. I like one on one time vs groups.
Well laid out, Christopher! I have to agree. I will say, as I most always do, that without the need for the tool called "money," the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet (by virtue of money) would not be able to affect a planetary control grid, as They are doing.
They could not pay Others to do things to Their agendas.
So I will keep promoting the removal of that dangerous and archaic tool by getting the free energy technologies out in the open so We don't need to account (with "money") for Our energy added into a system.
taking a nerdy angle here -- "isolation" has many dimensions. from weather, from transport, from raw materials, from finished products, from knowledge/books/libraries/internet, from people, from ill health. And each such dimension has a spectrum. Take 'transport". I might be isolated from 'mass transit' but roads are usable. Or maybe roads are fine, but nearest gumball machine is 200 miles away. that's just one dimension of isolation and its spectrum. Each dimension has its spectrum.
As anyone who's thought about real isolation for more than a minute knows, it's IMPOSSIBLE to isolate yourself truly. Unless you're dead. Which you will be soon, if well and truly isolated.
I know that's interpreting it very broadly, but to me it makes no sense to talk about living in a treehouse when i have to "go into town every weekend" to buy my Washington ComPost or use the library's WiFi. Or whatever, buy peanut butter for the rat traps. I don't know.
...this could go on and on and it's already too long. I only wanted to say that there'd be some value in a real map/chart of "Isolation" -- all the dimensions, and each with its spectrum and let people consider and review the implications.
At first, I saw a graphic of concentric circles forming in my head. The innermost being the individual, and then close family, extended family, friends, community, and then several circles on the outside for varying degrees of economic integration/interdependence.
But then I realized that someone might not have any family, or perhaps any friends, but still will have some economic interdependence. So the nesting/concentric model might not work…
Essentially, what is required for liberty is decentralization of power, which is usually taken to mean the transfer of decision-making authority from a central government to state or local levels. However, the ultimate decentralization of power would transfer decision-making authority to the individual level. Several passages in the US Constitution support decentralization of power. The single most relevant passage for our purposes appears to be the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” A movement to get the Constitution and, especially, the 10th Amendment, strictly enforced might appeal to both progressives and conservatives. People could choose what states or localities to live in based on their differing ideologies and not be at each other's throats. This could be consistent with panarchy. Many reasons could be given why this wouldn't work, but given the current political climate, I don't see any more likely alternatives.
It would be closer to panarchy, but unless I am actually allowed to secede or remain on my property and choose a different governance provider, it would not be panarchy.
Setting that aside, I wonder if a return to the 10th would actually appeal to progressives. What evidence is there for that? Whenever given the chance, I have found that progressives oppose greater freedom for the individual (other than a few token licentious behaviors). They trip over themselves to make fun of Próspera, even though it is hurting no one. They say seasteads should be blown up. They centralize everything. I see quite a few libertarian and conservative NGOs calling for a return to the 10th. I see no progressive ones.
I didn't claim that the political consequence of enacting my proposal is literally panarchy. I said it could be consistent with panarchy. I now see that I should have made my meaning clearer. What I meant was that both proposals could be consistent with each other's goals. I understand that the goal of both is to allow individuals the freedom to choose the social, political, and economic systems they prefer, thereby reducing conflicts between ideological opponents. Furthermore, I suspect the proposal could lead to panarchy because once people become accustomed to living in a society that suits their preferences, they may resist interference in their chosen lifestyle by outside authority.
I'm glad to see that quite a few libertarians and conservatives agree with my proposal. That gives me more reason to believe it might succeed.
I anticipated that you'd raise some objection to my proposal. That's why I said, “Many reasons could be given why this wouldn't work, but given the current political climate, I don't see any more likely alternatives.”
Progressives are no friends to liberty. Self-identified contemporary liberals, progressives, and other leftists never favored economic freedom, but appeared to favor personal freedom. Freedom of speech seemed to be the last personal freedom they would abandon. But now that progressives have a disproportionate influence on the education system, the news media, and the entertainment industry, they wish to silence all voices that oppose their ideology, which shows that they favor free speech conditionally for tactical reasons, not because of principle. Currently, there is a political backlash against that progressive influence, especially on the education system.
According to several recent surveys, approximately 35-40% of Americans identify as conservative, 30-35% as moderate or centrist, and only 20-25% as liberal or progressive. So, the rest of us have the progressives greatly outnumbered. If the progressives lose their disproportionate influence and are outvoted, they may decide they'd rather live in a progressive society and leave the rest of us alone than live in a society of which they disapprove.
Though there's an absence of good data on this issue, it's been estimated that less than 1% of the US population are anarchists, with anarcho-capitalists making up only a small proportion of that population. That suggests there would be a lot of current resistance to establishing and maintaining an anarcho-capitalist society, even among the general population. It seems more likely that complete liberty would have to be established incrementally rather than immediately. If you know of any more feasible proposal, I'd like to consider it.
As far as leftists being for personal freedom—are they?
This separation of personal freedom and economic freedom is a hangover from David Nolan's desire to set libertarians apart equally from leftists and conservatives. But he was wrong for several reasons.
Personal freedom and economic freedom are not separable. They're just freedom. If I am not free to engage in an economic transaction, then I am not free as a human person. And personal liberties (of the kind referred to in this separation) are usually also economic liberties. BUYING drugs, sex, gambling, etc.
When New London forced Suzette Kelo and her neighbors to engage in the economic transaction of selling their homes, was it only their economic liberty that was violated? They were forced from their places of dwelling. That is clearly a personal violation too.
Then, we have the salient fact that leftists are only for a narrow range of "personal" liberties. They're not for gun ownership. That is as much a personal liberty as an economic one. They are not for letting me decide whether or not to get vaccinated against Covid. That is a personal choice. How is it that the Nolan Chart places the left at the pinnacle of personal liberty? They are clearly not.
What's more, it's not clear that they were ever genuinely for speech. Look at the leftist pattern throughout history. Leftists are revolutionary and anti-establishment UNTIL they ARE the establishment, whereupon they become viciously repressive. Why should we look at the leftists in America as being any different. The rank and file take their cues from the cognoscenti, and the cognoscenti were Western Marxists in the 20s, Cultural Marxists in the 50s, and Postmodernists in the 70s, and all of these were running the "overthrow the existing order" playbook typical of all leftists. So their "free speech" movement was really just "free leftist revolutionary speech until we win." And now they are cracking down because they are in power. It's not a change in who they are. This was predictable all along.
I've been aware since the 1980s that the distinction between personal freedom and economic freedom is somewhat arbitrary. I've used similar arguments to yours to make the same case. I believe you and I have discussed that in the past. However, the distinction became a traditional way to distinguish between liberals and conservatives. Personal freedom, or civil liberties, is used to refer to such freedoms as those of speech, of assembly, of religion, and of personal lifestyle choices, whereas economic freedoms, or economic liberties, are said to refer to those of owning property, choosing employment, starting a business, engaging in trade, and otherwise managing one's economic resources. Most liberals and conservatives never consistently favored one alleged type of freedom and opposed the other. At best, the distinction indicated tendencies. Gradually, contemporary American liberalism moved in the direction of authoritarian collectivism and morphed into progressivism. I believe the Nolan Chart was an improvement over the traditional left-right spectrum, which placed totalitarians at opposite ends and left no place for libertarians—unless they were to occupy the middle with moderates. However, that chart isn't as useful now as it was.
"However, that chart isn't as useful now as it was."
—The traditional Nolan chart places left wingers at the PINNACLE of personal liberty. It suggests that the further left you go, the higher support you find for personal liberties. That just isn't so. Nolan was wrong. SOME personal liberties, perhaps. But not all by any means. Honestly, I think the Nolan chart was more about libertarian psychology: "Look, we're better than both those lefties and those righties." A single spectrum measuring individual freedom (in inverse proportion to amount of government) is much more accurate.
David Nolan did not originate the idea of distinguishing political ideologies according to advocacy of civil liberties and economic freedom. That notion originated with British psychologist Hans Eysenck, who claimed that political positions can be plotted on a chart with two axes: left-right (on economics) and tough-tender (authoritarian-libertarian), which led to a loose classification of political positions into four quadrants. Later political researchers Maurice Bryson and William McDill created a two-dimensional political chart whose vertical axis measures the degree of government control from statism to anarchy, and whose horizontal axis ranges from egalitarianism (the left) to hierarchy (the right). Eysenck, Bryson and McDill, and libertarian thinkers such as Murray Rothbard influenced David Nolan, who believed, as you do, that what primarily distinguishes political ideologies is the amount of government control over human action advocated. Nolan decided that nearly all human action can be divided into economic and personal. The former includes what people do as producers and consumers. The latter includes what else people do with their bodies and minds and in relationships with others. Conservatives tended to favor more freedom in economic matters but more government control in personal matters, while liberals tended to take the opposite positions. Only libertarians more or less consistently favored freedom, and only authoritarians tended to oppose it. Other political researchers have used similar methods to distinguish between political ideologies.
Yes, I believe I implied that in a comment above, when I said, "the traditional left-right spectrum...placed totalitarians at opposite ends and left no place for libertarians."
I agree—it will have to be incremental. I am working up a 100-year plan :-)
Re: Panarchy. I get it. Moving in that direction is better than not moving in that direction.
Re: a return to the 10th. Same thing. It is better to shrink government than not to shrink government, so anything that does that is welcome. I am not for making the perfect the enemy of the good.
The one caveat is this: we must never stop keeping the perfect in mind. In other words, a lot of people believe it is enough to shrink government, and that that is all we can ever do, and all we should try to do. So they set their sights on fighting over the ten yards to either side of the 50-yard line, and that's that. If we're making progress, great! What's that they call it? Lessarchism? That is good…so long as we never settle and keep working towards the ultimate goal.
It may require much less than 100 years to implement panarchy. The process seems to be underway. Many politicians of both parties appear to be unintentionally moving the US in that direction by using gerrymandering to disenfranchise members of the other party, which gives the disempowered voters an incentive to move to another state whose politics are more to their liking. Political leaders in several states are said to have engaged in or attempted gerrymandering to benefit one party in the elections. The states whose leaders aim to expand or secure GOP control include Arizona, Utah, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The states whose authorities plan to benefit the Democratic Party include Oregon, California, Nevada, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia. People appear to be migrating to states whose political environments better suit their preferences. According to one online search, population shifts tend to be from blue states, such as California, Illinois, and New York, to red or purple states, such as Texas, Utah, and Nevada.
Many Californians are moving to Nevada, where I live. In her December 12 Las Vegas Review-Journal commentary, Debra Saunders states:
“The IRS announced last month that California is the state experiencing the highest net loss of taxpayers, with one taxpayer leaving every 1 minute and 44 seconds.
“Nearly 39,000 Californians moved to Nevada last year.”
Unfortunately, most arrivals from California forget why they left their former state and bring their politics with them, a process we long-time Nevadans call “Californication.” Nevada used to be solid red. Now it's considered a purple state. I moved here in 1965 because Nevada seemed to be the freest state in the Union. It had legal casino gambling, legal prostitution in some counties, liberal marriage and divorce laws, 24-hour liquor service, and no state income tax or county sales tax. You could walk down the street unbothered with a cocktail in your hand at any time, night or day, and casino checks (chips) circulated as private money. The Cato Institute ranked Nevada as the freest state in the US in its Freedom in the 50 States Index as late as the year 2000, the Index's first year. In the most recent Index, Nevada is ranked fourth in overall freedom.
"The states whose authorities plan to benefit the Democratic Party include Oregon, California, Nevada, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia."
—Terrifying, since I live in New York state and won't be leaving anytime soon!
New York state has more than twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, so the state appears to be a lost cause unless upstate New Yorkers, who are predominantly Republican, secede from the rest of the state.
"Unfortunately, most arrivals from California forget why they left their former state and bring their politics with them, a process we long-time Nevadans call “Californication.”
People conflating individualism with all sorts of other negative characteristics (isolationism, selfishness, extreme introversion, anti-social behavior, etc.) is sadly commonplace in popular culture, I’ve found. Best thing those of us who know better can do is keep teaching and role-modeling the truth.
> When you hear people talk about individualism, do they equate it more with selfishness or with human dignity?
Way too much of it on the Right, too, with all the exalting of in-group/out-group dynamics. Patriotism, populism, nativism, nationalism . . . these are historically no friends of individuality.
Yep we can't all be whatevers; but as Robert Heinlein said; “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
Also I'd say if you can't make a chicken, or equivalent (Any bird will do.) sandwich from scratch using just what you have on hand and things within a mile of you right now your either ill prepared or need a bit more practical education. ;-)
Right this minute? OK first KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), something twix 2 pieces of bread's a sandwich.
So! I've chicken in the freezer & a loaf of bread I baked yesterday on the chopping block, cut, cook, place, voila a sandwich.
If I didn't have bread, I've flour etc. & could bake such. If I didn't have flour I've 40 pounds of barley (My stored instant beer; just add water,heat,yeast, hops, etc. & voila ale or stout!) that I could mill and bake. If I didn't have barley any grain, including rice can be milled and baked.
If I didn't have chicken in the freezer I've spruce hens (Grouse), and other birds, around the property and a few air guns, .22s, 12 gauge shotguns, etc. that could be used to harvest such
Flat bread, dough on a grill or even a hot stone only takes a few minutes to bake, BTW. Same is true regarding slices of chicken or any bird.
& OK when all's said and done it wouldn't be right this minute, especially if I had to go out and get the bird. The temperature's -30° F., it's around eight and the sun won't rise today until after ten this morning but with a bit of luck I could have that sandwich for lunch.
Well said, as usual. And so true - we need each other for many reasons, one being that we need each other to bounce off great ideas to form a more perfect society. I used to love Thoreau as a kid, but later realized that having only one fork seems lonely and selfish.
The Amish communities get to opt of social security and medicare b/c they have their families/ communities to fall back on that will take care of their elders. Wouldn't it be cool to choose that option without being from a religious sect?
Here's what AI says they need to do to get the exemption from paying SS and medicare:
Conditions for Exemption
To qualify for the exemption, individuals must:
Be a member of a recognized religious sect conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits from public or private insurance plans for death, disability, old-age, retirement, or medical care.
Belong to a religious sect with a long history (since at least December 31, 1950) of providing for its dependent members (food, shelter, medical care).
Have never received or been entitled to any Social Security benefits.
File IRS Form 4029, Application for Exemption From Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits, and have it approved by the IRS
In theory, absolutely, one man’s religion is another man’s philosophy. But, the fact that we have to prove we won’t take it should be flawed. Why not have an option to say naa, don’t want to pay in so will not collect? I think we know that answer.
Maybe we should establish something new. Not a new religion, since we certainly don't want to replace or supplant anyone's religious beliefs. But something like an add-on—like a rider on an insurance policy 🤣🤣
The government wants you silent, deep in a hole. They don’t want opposing views. This is the totalitarianism that was pushed on us during the plandemic. I was told this morning to stop making posts like this one. I’m not exactly sure what the problem was, I assume abortion or LGBTQ plus was the reason. Here’s the post.
Growing up “The Christmas Season” was always a magical time of year for me. I’ll always remember this one cold snowy December day walking home after a basketball game, I was 12 and played in the local Recreation Basketball league. It was cold and dark and the snow was already on the ground, I finally was getting home from the long walk across town. I walked into my house and there was my mother decorating the Christmas Tree. She had already put the lights in the windows and the garland on the mantel. She always made Christmas special for us kids. Christmas was once the best holiday.
The other day I came across a local story that has gone national. A local Reverend Stephan Josoma at Saint Susanna’s, a local parish, had set up the nativity scene without the baby Jesus, Mary or Joseph. He placed a sign saying ICE Was Here. The obvious presumption being that ice agents had taken all three of them and that they somehow were illegal aliens. Below it, in smaller letters, it says the holy family is welcome in our church, implying that Jesus and the holy family could seek refuge in the church. The archdiocese in Massachusetts has finally stepped in and told Josoma to take the nativity scene down, but the leftist priest insists on politicizing Christmas through the church, the sign remains. It’s incredible how the left continues to tear down the foundations of America. The birth of Christ is a central theme of Christianity and father Josoma should not be allowed to desecrate it. A Catholic Church at any Christian Church should not be used for a a priests ideology, left or right. This same priest has pulled similar shows of blasphemy in the past. It’s pretty obvious, at least around here, the Catholic Church leadership has pledged its allegiance to the democrat party, partly open borders and globalism even over God and Jesus. Trafficking Illegal immigrants into America is not only illegal but it’s big business, and the Catholic Church has made millions of needed dollars on open borders and illegal immigration. As always, it’s all about the money.
Now I’m no theologian but Jesus was a subject of the Roman Empire. Well Bethlehem, Nazareth and Egypt were all part of the Roman Empire, so Jesus and the Holy Family never broke immigration law. In fact nations and borders are spoken of over and over again in the scriptures. There are walls with watchmen and armies at those walls to protect cities, nations and the people that live behind those walls. Not anyone was allowed to just enter the city or country.
People always speak of what’s in the Bible, what it says, they nitpick about what the words mean. Sometimes you need to focus on what it doesn’t say. It would be a perfect story, wouldn’t it be, if when Mary and Joseph got to Bethlehem and the first door they knocked on they were welcomed in, sure use my house, it’s yours, take it over. Imagine if then Mary gave birth to Jesus right there on the living room floor of a strangers house, it would have been the perfect narrative for the open borders crowd, but that’s not what happened. All the doors that were knocked on were slammed shut. It’s human nature for a person and their family to be secure in their home and then of coarse be generous to others, not selfish in a bad way. Anyone you let into your home you want to know and have some trust. You’re not going to open your door to just any random stranger knocking at your door. Sometimes you have to look at what’s in the Bible and sometimes what’s not in the Bible. This is why Jesus was born in a manger. Did this priest not learn this in seminary? I’d love to ask him why are there 40 foot walls around the Vatican?
One more point for your reading pleasure😁. What is heaven? Heaven is a Kingdom, the Kingdom of God. You don’t just walk into the Kingdom of God, there’s a gate and if there’s a gate I’m sure there are walls. Not just anyone is allowed into heaven. You must live a life of faith, you must belief in God, repent, you are judged, and if you are found worthy you are allowed to enter. Heaven has strict border policies, hell has open borders.
There are other places for people that break the laws of a nation. Maybe reverend Josoma should think about his fate before he performs his acts of blasphemy here on earth. Maybe give a homily of how we shouldn’t tolerate the rampant abortion here in the state of Massachusetts or the constant assault on marriage and family, or how about speaking out against radical LGBTQ plus agenda, NO? It seems many churches in Massachusetts main agenda that flows onto the pulpit is breaking the law by allowing in illegal aliens and their push for citizens to break the law, house or help house illegal invaders, struggling families forced to pay for this.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just enjoy Christmas again, focus on the birth of Jesus, and his life, like when we were kids, without all the politics! J.Goodrich
This one person said I was making the author lose subscribers because of my comments. I don’t want you or other author’s to lose subscribers. I’ve about asked this guy if my posts bothered him. I think I’m a net plus but I don’t know. He basically told me he looks for my posts. I do love sub stack but you never really know what people think.
There's a sect of Christians who believe, before all HELL breaks out on Earth, the same scenarios of your article, because they're such Faithful Christians, they will ascend into heaven en masse, like Enoch, Elijah, Jesus and Muhammad.
I don't ascribe to that belief because of these words of Jesus, 'And now come I to you; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
I have given them your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil. John 17:13-15
Being anxious about the Future suggests a lack of Faith and Trust in God according to these words of Christ Jesus, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, With what shall we be clothed?
All these things do the Gentiles seek, for your heavenly Father KNOWS that you have need of all these things. But first seek the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil of it.
Jesus said, 'believe me, the hour comes, and NOW is, when you shall neither in this mountain, NOR YET AT JERUSALEM worship the Father. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in Truth.
Yep, I agree. (I did mention it, though I know it's a long article.)
Increasing one's degree of separation from the general populace is a good idea. But that doesn't mean that we have to completely isolate. Why not find our tribe and focus our time on them rather than on the crazies?
Cool. So that is what we are working on here. Creating a nation of many tribes—digital and real-world, who all share the ethos that humans ought to be free.
This one is good! And made me laugh at myself. Ya got me. I'm a hider. A hermit. And a prepper. You are so right though. We really need each other. I'm glad someone else tried that chicken sandwich thing so I don't have to. That is totally something I would try. 🤣
Yeppers.
The solution—the way to thread this needle—is to find our tribes. Find our crew, our people. We can separate from the system without being alone.
And I too am glad that you are not using your precious time trying to make a chicken sandwich or a pencil all on your own!
🤣🤣
Thanks. For 5 years I did not go to church, but this Sunday I went again. Not for the service, but for the people. It is good to be among others. To my surprise, we agreed on quite a few things, and no one brought up the fact that all of them are jabbed and I am not. I think everyone is over that now. It think most realize the govts fooled them. I stopped hoarding, only have a limited stash in case I get sick. I am still thinking of buying some kind of stove I can cook on in case of an emergency, since the hurricane last year, but since I am not an open-fire person, I think I will skip that as well. This was the first time we here got off the grid for 4 days in the 20 years I live here. Not worth taking the risk of putting my house on fire!
Back in the day, when kitchen fires were common, the kitchen was often an outbuilding to prevent the loss of the main building...
I grew up on a small farm in the 60s and 70s, and it was a horror. My childhood felt like children were born to work: after school and homework came farm work, seven days a week. Only on Sunday afternoons in winter did we have any time off. My youth was like hell to me. It’s not that my family were sadists, but every pair of hands was needed to keep the farm going. In summer, the days were long, from five in the morning until ten at night. Retreating into some kind of subsistence farming is typically a stupid, nonsensical idea dreamed up by big-city dwellers. They have no idea what kind of constantly changing hordes of pests and plant diseases are waiting for them
I hope a lot of people read your comment!
At my age, in 10 years I may be looking up at the ceiling of my coffin wondering what kinds of weeds I am supporting. If I was a lot younger, then many decisions would have to be considered. Living in an apartment, prepping is quite limited. It makes little sense for me.
It is inevitable that our silly government is going to collapse and go bonkers trying to keep itself in power as its corruption is now boiling over on all fronts. What happens then? Who really knows. For me, it is no time to worry. For those younger...they may be in for the ride of their lives. The rebuild will take generations.
I am not as far down the line (in my late 50s) as you, but we're all in the same line.
But what you say speaks to the larger ethos of this whole project. It will truly take generations, whether it is to build, to rebuild, or to undo the horror that has been built. Each one of us should not expect to sit in the shade of the trees we plant. It is enough to do the planting, and to pass the task on. The only way that the forest can exist is if we start planting.
Two thoughts:
1) At 75 years of age, I have been pushed/pulled back to as close to alone as I imagine most Americans ever get. It is tough but I am tired of dealing with assholes...
2) Humans lived and survived as a species for millennia with nothing but stone, bone and wooden tools, animal skins and sinews, gathered nuts, berries and tubers and fire; far longer than we have depended on agriculture, let alone industry...
1. I hear you. But why should that mean complete isolation. We can still find our tribe. Indeed, you and I are talking right now!
2. Yes, and life expectancy was 30 years if you were lucky. There is wisdom to be gained from some of the lifeways of our Paleolithic ancestors. However, I am not sure we want to actually go back there.
1)Yes, we are talking but here where I live real human contact is slim and infrequent. I often go as long as two weeks between substantive, face-to-face conversations. I have been looking for my tribe for 75 years and they haven't showed up yet...
2) Give me the choice between Paleolithic lifeways and living under a contemporary, totalitarian regime and I'll gladly opt to be a hunter-gatherer...
1. It's a common enough situation. One that I hope to begin building a solution for.
2. Given THAT choice, Yes!
Good one but I love my isolation.
Thank you.
But are you isolated? You and I are talking right now…
I don't really count digital as it's just not the same as human contact but I have spent majority of time alone and in isolation for many years.
Yep, digital is different. But we can still form digital tribes.
Do you simply prefer not to have direct human contact?
I like human contact, I just don't like pretending when everyone starts talking about viruses, government and all the things I don't subcribe to. I am having more human contact recently than in the past. I like one on one time vs groups.
So part of the issue is finding like-minded people?
Yes I have given up on that
Well laid out, Christopher! I have to agree. I will say, as I most always do, that without the need for the tool called "money," the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet (by virtue of money) would not be able to affect a planetary control grid, as They are doing.
They could not pay Others to do things to Their agendas.
So I will keep promoting the removal of that dangerous and archaic tool by getting the free energy technologies out in the open so We don't need to account (with "money") for Our energy added into a system.
80% of Us Merely Move Money (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/80-of-us-merely-move-money
taking a nerdy angle here -- "isolation" has many dimensions. from weather, from transport, from raw materials, from finished products, from knowledge/books/libraries/internet, from people, from ill health. And each such dimension has a spectrum. Take 'transport". I might be isolated from 'mass transit' but roads are usable. Or maybe roads are fine, but nearest gumball machine is 200 miles away. that's just one dimension of isolation and its spectrum. Each dimension has its spectrum.
As anyone who's thought about real isolation for more than a minute knows, it's IMPOSSIBLE to isolate yourself truly. Unless you're dead. Which you will be soon, if well and truly isolated.
I know that's interpreting it very broadly, but to me it makes no sense to talk about living in a treehouse when i have to "go into town every weekend" to buy my Washington ComPost or use the library's WiFi. Or whatever, buy peanut butter for the rat traps. I don't know.
...this could go on and on and it's already too long. I only wanted to say that there'd be some value in a real map/chart of "Isolation" -- all the dimensions, and each with its spectrum and let people consider and review the implications.
good luck to us all
To continue the nerdiness…
At first, I saw a graphic of concentric circles forming in my head. The innermost being the individual, and then close family, extended family, friends, community, and then several circles on the outside for varying degrees of economic integration/interdependence.
But then I realized that someone might not have any family, or perhaps any friends, but still will have some economic interdependence. So the nesting/concentric model might not work…
Essentially, what is required for liberty is decentralization of power, which is usually taken to mean the transfer of decision-making authority from a central government to state or local levels. However, the ultimate decentralization of power would transfer decision-making authority to the individual level. Several passages in the US Constitution support decentralization of power. The single most relevant passage for our purposes appears to be the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” A movement to get the Constitution and, especially, the 10th Amendment, strictly enforced might appeal to both progressives and conservatives. People could choose what states or localities to live in based on their differing ideologies and not be at each other's throats. This could be consistent with panarchy. Many reasons could be given why this wouldn't work, but given the current political climate, I don't see any more likely alternatives.
It would be closer to panarchy, but unless I am actually allowed to secede or remain on my property and choose a different governance provider, it would not be panarchy.
Setting that aside, I wonder if a return to the 10th would actually appeal to progressives. What evidence is there for that? Whenever given the chance, I have found that progressives oppose greater freedom for the individual (other than a few token licentious behaviors). They trip over themselves to make fun of Próspera, even though it is hurting no one. They say seasteads should be blown up. They centralize everything. I see quite a few libertarian and conservative NGOs calling for a return to the 10th. I see no progressive ones.
I didn't claim that the political consequence of enacting my proposal is literally panarchy. I said it could be consistent with panarchy. I now see that I should have made my meaning clearer. What I meant was that both proposals could be consistent with each other's goals. I understand that the goal of both is to allow individuals the freedom to choose the social, political, and economic systems they prefer, thereby reducing conflicts between ideological opponents. Furthermore, I suspect the proposal could lead to panarchy because once people become accustomed to living in a society that suits their preferences, they may resist interference in their chosen lifestyle by outside authority.
I'm glad to see that quite a few libertarians and conservatives agree with my proposal. That gives me more reason to believe it might succeed.
I anticipated that you'd raise some objection to my proposal. That's why I said, “Many reasons could be given why this wouldn't work, but given the current political climate, I don't see any more likely alternatives.”
Progressives are no friends to liberty. Self-identified contemporary liberals, progressives, and other leftists never favored economic freedom, but appeared to favor personal freedom. Freedom of speech seemed to be the last personal freedom they would abandon. But now that progressives have a disproportionate influence on the education system, the news media, and the entertainment industry, they wish to silence all voices that oppose their ideology, which shows that they favor free speech conditionally for tactical reasons, not because of principle. Currently, there is a political backlash against that progressive influence, especially on the education system.
According to several recent surveys, approximately 35-40% of Americans identify as conservative, 30-35% as moderate or centrist, and only 20-25% as liberal or progressive. So, the rest of us have the progressives greatly outnumbered. If the progressives lose their disproportionate influence and are outvoted, they may decide they'd rather live in a progressive society and leave the rest of us alone than live in a society of which they disapprove.
Though there's an absence of good data on this issue, it's been estimated that less than 1% of the US population are anarchists, with anarcho-capitalists making up only a small proportion of that population. That suggests there would be a lot of current resistance to establishing and maintaining an anarcho-capitalist society, even among the general population. It seems more likely that complete liberty would have to be established incrementally rather than immediately. If you know of any more feasible proposal, I'd like to consider it.
As far as leftists being for personal freedom—are they?
This separation of personal freedom and economic freedom is a hangover from David Nolan's desire to set libertarians apart equally from leftists and conservatives. But he was wrong for several reasons.
Personal freedom and economic freedom are not separable. They're just freedom. If I am not free to engage in an economic transaction, then I am not free as a human person. And personal liberties (of the kind referred to in this separation) are usually also economic liberties. BUYING drugs, sex, gambling, etc.
When New London forced Suzette Kelo and her neighbors to engage in the economic transaction of selling their homes, was it only their economic liberty that was violated? They were forced from their places of dwelling. That is clearly a personal violation too.
Then, we have the salient fact that leftists are only for a narrow range of "personal" liberties. They're not for gun ownership. That is as much a personal liberty as an economic one. They are not for letting me decide whether or not to get vaccinated against Covid. That is a personal choice. How is it that the Nolan Chart places the left at the pinnacle of personal liberty? They are clearly not.
What's more, it's not clear that they were ever genuinely for speech. Look at the leftist pattern throughout history. Leftists are revolutionary and anti-establishment UNTIL they ARE the establishment, whereupon they become viciously repressive. Why should we look at the leftists in America as being any different. The rank and file take their cues from the cognoscenti, and the cognoscenti were Western Marxists in the 20s, Cultural Marxists in the 50s, and Postmodernists in the 70s, and all of these were running the "overthrow the existing order" playbook typical of all leftists. So their "free speech" movement was really just "free leftist revolutionary speech until we win." And now they are cracking down because they are in power. It's not a change in who they are. This was predictable all along.
I've been aware since the 1980s that the distinction between personal freedom and economic freedom is somewhat arbitrary. I've used similar arguments to yours to make the same case. I believe you and I have discussed that in the past. However, the distinction became a traditional way to distinguish between liberals and conservatives. Personal freedom, or civil liberties, is used to refer to such freedoms as those of speech, of assembly, of religion, and of personal lifestyle choices, whereas economic freedoms, or economic liberties, are said to refer to those of owning property, choosing employment, starting a business, engaging in trade, and otherwise managing one's economic resources. Most liberals and conservatives never consistently favored one alleged type of freedom and opposed the other. At best, the distinction indicated tendencies. Gradually, contemporary American liberalism moved in the direction of authoritarian collectivism and morphed into progressivism. I believe the Nolan Chart was an improvement over the traditional left-right spectrum, which placed totalitarians at opposite ends and left no place for libertarians—unless they were to occupy the middle with moderates. However, that chart isn't as useful now as it was.
"However, that chart isn't as useful now as it was."
—The traditional Nolan chart places left wingers at the PINNACLE of personal liberty. It suggests that the further left you go, the higher support you find for personal liberties. That just isn't so. Nolan was wrong. SOME personal liberties, perhaps. But not all by any means. Honestly, I think the Nolan chart was more about libertarian psychology: "Look, we're better than both those lefties and those righties." A single spectrum measuring individual freedom (in inverse proportion to amount of government) is much more accurate.
David Nolan did not originate the idea of distinguishing political ideologies according to advocacy of civil liberties and economic freedom. That notion originated with British psychologist Hans Eysenck, who claimed that political positions can be plotted on a chart with two axes: left-right (on economics) and tough-tender (authoritarian-libertarian), which led to a loose classification of political positions into four quadrants. Later political researchers Maurice Bryson and William McDill created a two-dimensional political chart whose vertical axis measures the degree of government control from statism to anarchy, and whose horizontal axis ranges from egalitarianism (the left) to hierarchy (the right). Eysenck, Bryson and McDill, and libertarian thinkers such as Murray Rothbard influenced David Nolan, who believed, as you do, that what primarily distinguishes political ideologies is the amount of government control over human action advocated. Nolan decided that nearly all human action can be divided into economic and personal. The former includes what people do as producers and consumers. The latter includes what else people do with their bodies and minds and in relationships with others. Conservatives tended to favor more freedom in economic matters but more government control in personal matters, while liberals tended to take the opposite positions. Only libertarians more or less consistently favored freedom, and only authoritarians tended to oppose it. Other political researchers have used similar methods to distinguish between political ideologies.
"I believe the Nolan Chart was an improvement over the traditional left-right spectrum"
—That's because the traditional left-right spectrum (the one that places communism and Nazism at opposite ends) is complete, utter, total garbage.
Yes, I believe I implied that in a comment above, when I said, "the traditional left-right spectrum...placed totalitarians at opposite ends and left no place for libertarians."
I agree—it will have to be incremental. I am working up a 100-year plan :-)
Re: Panarchy. I get it. Moving in that direction is better than not moving in that direction.
Re: a return to the 10th. Same thing. It is better to shrink government than not to shrink government, so anything that does that is welcome. I am not for making the perfect the enemy of the good.
The one caveat is this: we must never stop keeping the perfect in mind. In other words, a lot of people believe it is enough to shrink government, and that that is all we can ever do, and all we should try to do. So they set their sights on fighting over the ten yards to either side of the 50-yard line, and that's that. If we're making progress, great! What's that they call it? Lessarchism? That is good…so long as we never settle and keep working towards the ultimate goal.
It may require much less than 100 years to implement panarchy. The process seems to be underway. Many politicians of both parties appear to be unintentionally moving the US in that direction by using gerrymandering to disenfranchise members of the other party, which gives the disempowered voters an incentive to move to another state whose politics are more to their liking. Political leaders in several states are said to have engaged in or attempted gerrymandering to benefit one party in the elections. The states whose leaders aim to expand or secure GOP control include Arizona, Utah, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The states whose authorities plan to benefit the Democratic Party include Oregon, California, Nevada, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia. People appear to be migrating to states whose political environments better suit their preferences. According to one online search, population shifts tend to be from blue states, such as California, Illinois, and New York, to red or purple states, such as Texas, Utah, and Nevada.
Many Californians are moving to Nevada, where I live. In her December 12 Las Vegas Review-Journal commentary, Debra Saunders states:
“The IRS announced last month that California is the state experiencing the highest net loss of taxpayers, with one taxpayer leaving every 1 minute and 44 seconds.
“Nearly 39,000 Californians moved to Nevada last year.”
Unfortunately, most arrivals from California forget why they left their former state and bring their politics with them, a process we long-time Nevadans call “Californication.” Nevada used to be solid red. Now it's considered a purple state. I moved here in 1965 because Nevada seemed to be the freest state in the Union. It had legal casino gambling, legal prostitution in some counties, liberal marriage and divorce laws, 24-hour liquor service, and no state income tax or county sales tax. You could walk down the street unbothered with a cocktail in your hand at any time, night or day, and casino checks (chips) circulated as private money. The Cato Institute ranked Nevada as the freest state in the US in its Freedom in the 50 States Index as late as the year 2000, the Index's first year. In the most recent Index, Nevada is ranked fourth in overall freedom.
"forget why they left their former state and bring their politics with them"
—They're like locusts.
According to a report I read years ago, a (possibly unofficial) sign in Idaho advised immigrants from California to leave their politics behind.
"It may require much less than 100 years to implement panarchy."
—That'd be nice.
"The states whose authorities plan to benefit the Democratic Party include Oregon, California, Nevada, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia."
—Terrifying, since I live in New York state and won't be leaving anytime soon!
New York state has more than twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, so the state appears to be a lost cause unless upstate New Yorkers, who are predominantly Republican, secede from the rest of the state.
"Unfortunately, most arrivals from California forget why they left their former state and bring their politics with them, a process we long-time Nevadans call “Californication.”
—Same thing happened to beautiful Montana.
People conflating individualism with all sorts of other negative characteristics (isolationism, selfishness, extreme introversion, anti-social behavior, etc.) is sadly commonplace in popular culture, I’ve found. Best thing those of us who know better can do is keep teaching and role-modeling the truth.
> When you hear people talk about individualism, do they equate it more with selfishness or with human dignity?
https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/is-individualism-anti-social
It is commonplace among leftists, and leftists run the culture.
Way too much of it on the Right, too, with all the exalting of in-group/out-group dynamics. Patriotism, populism, nativism, nationalism . . . these are historically no friends of individuality.
This would bring us right back to the "is the right classical liberal or something else" debate. Maybe now's not the time. 🤣
Yep we can't all be whatevers; but as Robert Heinlein said; “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
Also I'd say if you can't make a chicken, or equivalent (Any bird will do.) sandwich from scratch using just what you have on hand and things within a mile of you right now your either ill prepared or need a bit more practical education. ;-)
So what do you have on hand right this minute that would enable you to make that sandwich?
Right this minute? OK first KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), something twix 2 pieces of bread's a sandwich.
So! I've chicken in the freezer & a loaf of bread I baked yesterday on the chopping block, cut, cook, place, voila a sandwich.
If I didn't have bread, I've flour etc. & could bake such. If I didn't have flour I've 40 pounds of barley (My stored instant beer; just add water,heat,yeast, hops, etc. & voila ale or stout!) that I could mill and bake. If I didn't have barley any grain, including rice can be milled and baked.
If I didn't have chicken in the freezer I've spruce hens (Grouse), and other birds, around the property and a few air guns, .22s, 12 gauge shotguns, etc. that could be used to harvest such
Flat bread, dough on a grill or even a hot stone only takes a few minutes to bake, BTW. Same is true regarding slices of chicken or any bird.
& OK when all's said and done it wouldn't be right this minute, especially if I had to go out and get the bird. The temperature's -30° F., it's around eight and the sun won't rise today until after ten this morning but with a bit of luck I could have that sandwich for lunch.
Well said, as usual. And so true - we need each other for many reasons, one being that we need each other to bounce off great ideas to form a more perfect society. I used to love Thoreau as a kid, but later realized that having only one fork seems lonely and selfish.
The Amish communities get to opt of social security and medicare b/c they have their families/ communities to fall back on that will take care of their elders. Wouldn't it be cool to choose that option without being from a religious sect?
Here's what AI says they need to do to get the exemption from paying SS and medicare:
Conditions for Exemption
To qualify for the exemption, individuals must:
Be a member of a recognized religious sect conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits from public or private insurance plans for death, disability, old-age, retirement, or medical care.
Belong to a religious sect with a long history (since at least December 31, 1950) of providing for its dependent members (food, shelter, medical care).
Have never received or been entitled to any Social Security benefits.
File IRS Form 4029, Application for Exemption From Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits, and have it approved by the IRS
What if we're philosophically opposed? Why doesn't that count?
In theory, absolutely, one man’s religion is another man’s philosophy. But, the fact that we have to prove we won’t take it should be flawed. Why not have an option to say naa, don’t want to pay in so will not collect? I think we know that answer.
Maybe we should establish something new. Not a new religion, since we certainly don't want to replace or supplant anyone's religious beliefs. But something like an add-on—like a rider on an insurance policy 🤣🤣
Yeah!!! The opt out clause.
❤️
The government wants you silent, deep in a hole. They don’t want opposing views. This is the totalitarianism that was pushed on us during the plandemic. I was told this morning to stop making posts like this one. I’m not exactly sure what the problem was, I assume abortion or LGBTQ plus was the reason. Here’s the post.
Growing up “The Christmas Season” was always a magical time of year for me. I’ll always remember this one cold snowy December day walking home after a basketball game, I was 12 and played in the local Recreation Basketball league. It was cold and dark and the snow was already on the ground, I finally was getting home from the long walk across town. I walked into my house and there was my mother decorating the Christmas Tree. She had already put the lights in the windows and the garland on the mantel. She always made Christmas special for us kids. Christmas was once the best holiday.
The other day I came across a local story that has gone national. A local Reverend Stephan Josoma at Saint Susanna’s, a local parish, had set up the nativity scene without the baby Jesus, Mary or Joseph. He placed a sign saying ICE Was Here. The obvious presumption being that ice agents had taken all three of them and that they somehow were illegal aliens. Below it, in smaller letters, it says the holy family is welcome in our church, implying that Jesus and the holy family could seek refuge in the church. The archdiocese in Massachusetts has finally stepped in and told Josoma to take the nativity scene down, but the leftist priest insists on politicizing Christmas through the church, the sign remains. It’s incredible how the left continues to tear down the foundations of America. The birth of Christ is a central theme of Christianity and father Josoma should not be allowed to desecrate it. A Catholic Church at any Christian Church should not be used for a a priests ideology, left or right. This same priest has pulled similar shows of blasphemy in the past. It’s pretty obvious, at least around here, the Catholic Church leadership has pledged its allegiance to the democrat party, partly open borders and globalism even over God and Jesus. Trafficking Illegal immigrants into America is not only illegal but it’s big business, and the Catholic Church has made millions of needed dollars on open borders and illegal immigration. As always, it’s all about the money.
Now I’m no theologian but Jesus was a subject of the Roman Empire. Well Bethlehem, Nazareth and Egypt were all part of the Roman Empire, so Jesus and the Holy Family never broke immigration law. In fact nations and borders are spoken of over and over again in the scriptures. There are walls with watchmen and armies at those walls to protect cities, nations and the people that live behind those walls. Not anyone was allowed to just enter the city or country.
People always speak of what’s in the Bible, what it says, they nitpick about what the words mean. Sometimes you need to focus on what it doesn’t say. It would be a perfect story, wouldn’t it be, if when Mary and Joseph got to Bethlehem and the first door they knocked on they were welcomed in, sure use my house, it’s yours, take it over. Imagine if then Mary gave birth to Jesus right there on the living room floor of a strangers house, it would have been the perfect narrative for the open borders crowd, but that’s not what happened. All the doors that were knocked on were slammed shut. It’s human nature for a person and their family to be secure in their home and then of coarse be generous to others, not selfish in a bad way. Anyone you let into your home you want to know and have some trust. You’re not going to open your door to just any random stranger knocking at your door. Sometimes you have to look at what’s in the Bible and sometimes what’s not in the Bible. This is why Jesus was born in a manger. Did this priest not learn this in seminary? I’d love to ask him why are there 40 foot walls around the Vatican?
One more point for your reading pleasure😁. What is heaven? Heaven is a Kingdom, the Kingdom of God. You don’t just walk into the Kingdom of God, there’s a gate and if there’s a gate I’m sure there are walls. Not just anyone is allowed into heaven. You must live a life of faith, you must belief in God, repent, you are judged, and if you are found worthy you are allowed to enter. Heaven has strict border policies, hell has open borders.
There are other places for people that break the laws of a nation. Maybe reverend Josoma should think about his fate before he performs his acts of blasphemy here on earth. Maybe give a homily of how we shouldn’t tolerate the rampant abortion here in the state of Massachusetts or the constant assault on marriage and family, or how about speaking out against radical LGBTQ plus agenda, NO? It seems many churches in Massachusetts main agenda that flows onto the pulpit is breaking the law by allowing in illegal aliens and their push for citizens to break the law, house or help house illegal invaders, struggling families forced to pay for this.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just enjoy Christmas again, focus on the birth of Jesus, and his life, like when we were kids, without all the politics! J.Goodrich
Nice Christmas memories!
So why did people complain about your comment?
I’m not exactly sure. I think it might be that I pointed out the rampant abortion in Massachusetts or the LGBTQ agenda?
So lefties attacked you? Why would you let that bother you? They're out of their minds.
This one person said I was making the author lose subscribers because of my comments. I don’t want you or other author’s to lose subscribers. I’ve about asked this guy if my posts bothered him. I think I’m a net plus but I don’t know. He basically told me he looks for my posts. I do love sub stack but you never really know what people think.
Well, I know what I think, and I think you're definitely a net plus.
Thank You Christopher!!!
There's a sect of Christians who believe, before all HELL breaks out on Earth, the same scenarios of your article, because they're such Faithful Christians, they will ascend into heaven en masse, like Enoch, Elijah, Jesus and Muhammad.
I don't ascribe to that belief because of these words of Jesus, 'And now come I to you; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
I have given them your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil. John 17:13-15
Being anxious about the Future suggests a lack of Faith and Trust in God according to these words of Christ Jesus, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, With what shall we be clothed?
All these things do the Gentiles seek, for your heavenly Father KNOWS that you have need of all these things. But first seek the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil of it.
Jesus said, 'believe me, the hour comes, and NOW is, when you shall neither in this mountain, NOR YET AT JERUSALEM worship the Father. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in Truth.
Yep, I agree. (I did mention it, though I know it's a long article.)
Increasing one's degree of separation from the general populace is a good idea. But that doesn't mean that we have to completely isolate. Why not find our tribe and focus our time on them rather than on the crazies?
Cool. So that is what we are working on here. Creating a nation of many tribes—digital and real-world, who all share the ethos that humans ought to be free.