Beautiful piece. And you have me wishing I was an elf living in Rivendell (again!!) I’ve been there, on a trip to NZ, where they constructed that world. Breathtaking.
I always think of “government” as “control over mind”.
I love the sentiment of the last paragraph- reverting to using personal names. I’m reminded of the Law for Mankind course. Have you taken it?
When we use titles we are playing the legal game constructed to keep us enslaved. When we use names, we are all equal again. When we remember who we are, no man or woman can lawfully divide us from our sovereignty.
"And you have me wishing I was an elf living in Rivendell (again!!)"
—For a brief time when I was about 11 years old, I wasn't just wishing it, I was (almost ) there. Indeed, in the comment thread on the post with your song, I mention losing my oldest friendship due to politics—well she was a huge part of the reason why that time was so magical.
"I always think of 'government' as 'control over mind.'
—I am starting to understand just how deeply true that is.
"Law for Mankind course. Have you taken it?"
—No, I don't know what it is.
"When we use titles we are playing the legal game constructed to keep us enslaved. When we use names, we are all equal again. When we remember who we are, no man or woman can lawfully divide us from our sovereignty."
—When more people think like you do, change will come.
I am a longterm Tolkien fan and it has been a little difficult realizing that a lot of these famous writers knew something of elite insider cult or may have been part of it. Sometimes it is more clear if they were part, or only warning about what they were observing at surface levels.
Think about it. I quite frequently write about the they-ocracy. The way I express it is like this "They" meaning those who are threatening us with violence all the time. A democracy is simple man made rules by those who are voted into power. A theocracy is "God" made rules. Which is a joke because you would have to have god available to enforce the rules which is never the case. It's always psychopathic control freak parasites making the rules claiming to be the chosen of God, whether it be Christian, Muslim, or Judaism. Plus a few lesser know flavors that appear to be less violent.
Agreed./ But she was suggesting that Tolkien was in on something. At least I think that is what she was suggesting. I find myself skeptical of that notion.
I would live happily in a world like is describe. And if you think about it, our Founding Fathers gave us a rather small government for all intents. I can carry the rules in a small booklet in my shirt pocket. The problem arises when the people who gain office ignore the rule book. I can imagine as late as the 1850 before Lincoln the dictator came to power that the people of the country had very little if any interaction with the federal government. It was all localized. Since the war for northern domination we now have over 400 federal agencies in existence. NONE of which are authorized in the Constitution itself.
Show me the Constitutional authority of the ATF, FCC, FAA, HUD, IRS, KGB, FBI, CIA, NSA, DARPA, etc. etc...yes, I know the KGB shouldn't be in there. But what the heck, maybe it should be.
Either they were not authorized in the Constitution, but the Constitution failed to prevent them, or they were authorized (by the Necessary and Proper Clause, for example. Either way, the Constitution has either imposed this monstrosity upon us or failed to protect us from it.
I would say that the Articles of Confederation might've have fit the bill for the kind of limited government you and I would imagine. But they got rid of those. I have come to distrust the motives and methods of the Federalists.
sadly, anarchy, while the most superior form of governance, will never materialize . . . too many lazy leeches snorting up public money handed to them by the corrupt government . . . also, historically, among whites anyway, anarchy never existed and where it did (native americans etc, those cultures were handily decimated by the whites
Heya br'er David! I am glad you are recognizing its superiority!
Now, we have to deal with a couple of errors in thinking.
The first is an error nearly all of us make nearly all the time: the notion that one solution must obtain for all people in a given area. That is a longstanding belief that, while deeply rooted in our nature as ultra-social creatures, just isn't true.
In a condition of voluntary order (anarchy) I and a few neighbors could start our own polity on our own property. We do not need to concern ourselves with leeches. Other polities might do the same. Large areas might simply be open territory in which people contract with private agencies for security, justice, and infrastructure. No one would any longer have money forcibly taken from them to supply leeches.
At that point, people cannot as easily survive by leeching. The truly needy can seek private charity. (And they will definitely receive it—Americans, for example, are among the most privately charitable people in the world. Imagine how they'd be without government taking 40% of their wealth off the top.)
brother C, we're pretty much on the same page, however, we differ regarding what i call the cunning of corruption, which precludes the possibility of anything good happening for people in general
Some humans are corrupt and will use various means to achieve aims, to the detriment of other humans. We will take that as a premise.
So then we have two choices:
1. Allow the continued existence of entities that claim an unchallengeable, inescapable monopoly of force and authority over a given territory and people, thus giving corrupt humans a ready-made vector by which forcibly to impose their corruption upon others, or
2. Remove any systems and entities that can impose a monopoly of force and authority. Require (and defend by force of arms, if necessary) that all transactions and forms of governance be voluntary and consensual.
Choice 2 does not get rid of human corruption. It does not mean that some corrupt people will not find ways to exert their corruption upon others. But it does make it a hell of a lot more difficult!
Beautiful piece. And you have me wishing I was an elf living in Rivendell (again!!) I’ve been there, on a trip to NZ, where they constructed that world. Breathtaking.
I always think of “government” as “control over mind”.
I love the sentiment of the last paragraph- reverting to using personal names. I’m reminded of the Law for Mankind course. Have you taken it?
When we use titles we are playing the legal game constructed to keep us enslaved. When we use names, we are all equal again. When we remember who we are, no man or woman can lawfully divide us from our sovereignty.
"And you have me wishing I was an elf living in Rivendell (again!!)"
—For a brief time when I was about 11 years old, I wasn't just wishing it, I was (almost ) there. Indeed, in the comment thread on the post with your song, I mention losing my oldest friendship due to politics—well she was a huge part of the reason why that time was so magical.
"I always think of 'government' as 'control over mind.'
—I am starting to understand just how deeply true that is.
"Law for Mankind course. Have you taken it?"
—No, I don't know what it is.
"When we use titles we are playing the legal game constructed to keep us enslaved. When we use names, we are all equal again. When we remember who we are, no man or woman can lawfully divide us from our sovereignty."
—When more people think like you do, change will come.
“When more people think like you do, change will come.”
I truly believe that is what this time is all about. ❤️
You can find more about the course here:
https://thesovereignsway.com
I will check it out!
They-ocracy. I like that. Nice job thanks.
I am a longterm Tolkien fan and it has been a little difficult realizing that a lot of these famous writers knew something of elite insider cult or may have been part of it. Sometimes it is more clear if they were part, or only warning about what they were observing at surface levels.
Thanks, and yeah, they-ocracy is an interesting term. What do you think he meant?
" a lot of these famous writers knew something of elite insider cult or may have been part of it."
Please tell me more…
Think about it. I quite frequently write about the they-ocracy. The way I express it is like this "They" meaning those who are threatening us with violence all the time. A democracy is simple man made rules by those who are voted into power. A theocracy is "God" made rules. Which is a joke because you would have to have god available to enforce the rules which is never the case. It's always psychopathic control freak parasites making the rules claiming to be the chosen of God, whether it be Christian, Muslim, or Judaism. Plus a few lesser know flavors that appear to be less violent.
Agreed./ But she was suggesting that Tolkien was in on something. At least I think that is what she was suggesting. I find myself skeptical of that notion.
I would live happily in a world like is describe. And if you think about it, our Founding Fathers gave us a rather small government for all intents. I can carry the rules in a small booklet in my shirt pocket. The problem arises when the people who gain office ignore the rule book. I can imagine as late as the 1850 before Lincoln the dictator came to power that the people of the country had very little if any interaction with the federal government. It was all localized. Since the war for northern domination we now have over 400 federal agencies in existence. NONE of which are authorized in the Constitution itself.
Show me the Constitutional authority of the ATF, FCC, FAA, HUD, IRS, KGB, FBI, CIA, NSA, DARPA, etc. etc...yes, I know the KGB shouldn't be in there. But what the heck, maybe it should be.
Either they were not authorized in the Constitution, but the Constitution failed to prevent them, or they were authorized (by the Necessary and Proper Clause, for example. Either way, the Constitution has either imposed this monstrosity upon us or failed to protect us from it.
I would say that the Articles of Confederation might've have fit the bill for the kind of limited government you and I would imagine. But they got rid of those. I have come to distrust the motives and methods of the Federalists.
sadly, anarchy, while the most superior form of governance, will never materialize . . . too many lazy leeches snorting up public money handed to them by the corrupt government . . . also, historically, among whites anyway, anarchy never existed and where it did (native americans etc, those cultures were handily decimated by the whites
Heya br'er David! I am glad you are recognizing its superiority!
Now, we have to deal with a couple of errors in thinking.
The first is an error nearly all of us make nearly all the time: the notion that one solution must obtain for all people in a given area. That is a longstanding belief that, while deeply rooted in our nature as ultra-social creatures, just isn't true.
In a condition of voluntary order (anarchy) I and a few neighbors could start our own polity on our own property. We do not need to concern ourselves with leeches. Other polities might do the same. Large areas might simply be open territory in which people contract with private agencies for security, justice, and infrastructure. No one would any longer have money forcibly taken from them to supply leeches.
At that point, people cannot as easily survive by leeching. The truly needy can seek private charity. (And they will definitely receive it—Americans, for example, are among the most privately charitable people in the world. Imagine how they'd be without government taking 40% of their wealth off the top.)
The second is the notion that this has never been done. Read and be happy: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/building-island-3-historical-examples-anarchism
brother C, we're pretty much on the same page, however, we differ regarding what i call the cunning of corruption, which precludes the possibility of anything good happening for people in general
Some humans are corrupt and will use various means to achieve aims, to the detriment of other humans. We will take that as a premise.
So then we have two choices:
1. Allow the continued existence of entities that claim an unchallengeable, inescapable monopoly of force and authority over a given territory and people, thus giving corrupt humans a ready-made vector by which forcibly to impose their corruption upon others, or
2. Remove any systems and entities that can impose a monopoly of force and authority. Require (and defend by force of arms, if necessary) that all transactions and forms of governance be voluntary and consensual.
Choice 2 does not get rid of human corruption. It does not mean that some corrupt people will not find ways to exert their corruption upon others. But it does make it a hell of a lot more difficult!