Know that feeling all to well of risking it all just for the health of my own self and my family. What a nightmare that was. Even telling people to research or up their vitamins/healthy lifestyle was a risk to my livelihood. Absolutely ridiculous times. 😒
It will get even uglier when it comes down to one person's survival against another's. When one person is willing to torpedo another person's livelihood to save their own, and the stakes are high on both sides, then it will become "dog-eat-dog" and whomever takes drastic action first will be most likely to prevail and move on to the next round. God help us.
Survival situations will often bring out the worst in bad people but also the best in good people. Too bad history shows us that bad people often greatly outnumber good people.
"Bad people tend to act and good people tend to react."
Yes, I observe that to be true of the political right. We always seem to limit ourselves to just reacting to the latest outrage perpetrated by the left. If that's true, could it be because we believe in live-and-let-live, and just want to get on with improving things for ourselves and our families? While bad people have a different agenda.
We're not there yet, but good people need to be mentally, emotionally, and spiritually prepared to recognize a threat and take steps to neutralize it. That will call for different actions for different situations, but it may become necessary to be ruthless and/or violent. Bad people don't usually have any apprehension to being ruthless or violent. Good people do.
Not sure... It's a long slow pull. I just hope I'll know it when I see it.
I do know that any significant threat to my ability to provide for my family would be a trigger, but as long as I have other options, the threat isn't that significant. I am reading your more recent post and am glad that you (or someone) is discussing this as the time to discuss it seriously is before we find out it's to late to prepare our hearts and minds for what might be coming.
I recall the right move in water when a panicking victim grabs you is to use your arms, jumping-jack style, to sink both of you as deeply and quickly as you can. That makes them let go. We practiced that in Boy Scout camp. (Is there still a Boy Scouts or did the Left destroy it? )
For Covid, I took two Moderna shots and a booster because I was sure I wouldn't be allowed to continue my volunteer science teaching of grade school kids without a vaccination. And I still had faith in govt health agencies. That faith is now virtually gone.
After a few incidents or a couple false-flag events staged by Big Govt, they'll be confiscating money, firearms, gold, homes, etc. all for the "public good". That will make past incidences of "doing the right thing" seem really easy.
I think the Boy Scouts still exists, though not as it was, and possibly not for much longer. Destroying it was probably the goal all along.
Yes, anyone who has ben paying attention has little faith left.
As to your last paragraph, it inspires the same question I am discussing with Max Borders elsewhere in this comment thread: is violence justified in response, and if so, at what point?
How should one characterize a government which has outlawed the possession of precious metals? Which incarcerates a particalar ethnic group? Which allows a few people of wealth to influence every aspect of life? Which allows a cabal to make the nation's money out of thin air and to charge interest? Which demands any arbitrary amount of income to be taken by force, from certain individuals? Which allows aid and support to enemies of the nation by wealthy citizens? Which allows total corruption of the election process? (for what it's worth). Which arbitrarily allows public theft of private property?
And which, in secret, steals intellectual property and destroys the lives of thousands of citizens every year, and with impunity, creates the legal framework for and implements a global genocide.
The economist Bob Murphy prompted a serious question, recently: When is it appropriate to use counter-violence? Or, is counter-violence ever the right thing? I realized I don't have a good answer.
Oh goodness, this is indeed a difficult question. I can at least entertain arguments across a spectrum…
Let us begin by acknowledging what I believe to be a baseline view we share: that what we have now, by forcibly violating the consent of the human person, is somewhere between deeply morally problematic and entirely morally impermissible.
Let us also make a terminological distinction between coercive force and the protective force that must be deployed in response to the initiation of coercive force. I believe that we also share the view that protective force is justified in response to coercive force.
I have done philosophical calculus elsewhere that I think justifies (to my satisfaction, at least 🤣) these as baseline presuppositions.
If we are correct about these, then the next essential questions are these: does what we have now rise to the level of coercive force, and if it does not now, when would would it? And then…if and when it does, would protective force be the most effective or most moral option in response?
Let us take one aspect of what we have now and unpack it. How about payroll taxes and Social Security? Thinking it out on the fly…
1. You did not consent to this entire system of governance. It is imposed upon you by force and you are not allowed to opt out and create your own system. They will kill you if you try. This is clearly a violation of human self-ownership. It is violence. BUT…the conservative view rightly notes that this is the way things have been done for a very, very long time. Is it right to just start blowing stuff up based on a philosophical objection—even a correct one—to such a longstanding human institution/phenomenon? Probably not. But then…
2. You did not consent to have such a huge chunk of your earnings taken from you by force in the form of payroll taxes.
3. You did not consent to the fact that you are prevented from earning interest on that money. If the amount taken in payroll taxes were invested in indexed stock accounts over the typical adult working lifetime, even lower-middle-class workers would retire millionaires. Instead, they get back some pathetic portion of what they had taken from them. That is a direct assault on the property and quality of life of the human person. It is not okay.
4. You did not consent to how the government uses the money while it is "storing" it for you. You did not consent to the warfare, the welfare, or the waste. You did not consent to have people murdered with your money, in your name.
5. You did not consent to be given back a pittance at the end of your working life, on their terms, at ages they determine.
6. And you certainly did not consent to have that pittance taxed a second time before they so generously dole it back out to you.
All of this is a clear moral crime. In one strict philosophical-moral analysis, the whole system is worthy of being burned down to the ground. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-M4WXov2lM) The system is arguably that repugnant. This is the case even before we get to full-blown totalitarianism.
But at exactly what target ought such ire, however morally justified, be directed? The IRS agent, who is just doing his job? The politicians, who inherited this system from politicians who inherited it from still more politicians going back a century? The cop with the wife and kids who comes to take you away from not paying your taxes? It's such a mess.
I think we can do better than violence…though violence does certainly get more justified the more the totalitarianism screws get tightened.
Though even there… look at how it got solved in Poland (the Pope and millions of people pouring into the streets). Estonia—through song. The USSR in 1991, in the (almost) bloodless collapse of the regime, which I witnessed with my own eyes. Peace can work!
My working outlook for dealing with things as they are now is this:
We begin making the arguments, laying the groundwork, and then negotiating with legacy governments for both territorial and non-territorial opt-out. (None dare call it 'secession'!)
We make the case morally. We make it legally if possible. We proceed always with care, kindness, and, in the words of H-H Hoppe, "diplomatic tact."
We begin acting on it in any way we can. We build momentum, numbers, and legitimacy. We begin approaching critical mass.
It may take five years or 50 or more. All of these actions are our fundamental right as human persons.
At some point, the ball is in their court. What do they do when hundreds, thousands, millions of people express a clear preference? Do they act with violence? Such action would be entirely unjustified.
In other words, we work towards these goals always with a peaceful approach. And if, at some point, violence is initiated by them such that a response is needed, that would be entirely on them.
But I don't think it is going to come to that. I think they are going to collapse, and all we need to do is be ready.
These are, of course, my thoughts on the fly, based on my current thinking. I am open to arguments in any direction on this topic.
I was blessed to be in a similar position. My livelihood and professional status were not at risk making my non compliance much easier. I did not mask. I did not follow the arrows. I defiantly marched into stores with masking signs posted. No one said a word to me. I definitely didn’t take the poison jabs. I am so saddened what my profession has become. When pushed even a little, the vast majority complied. I hope they have learned something and simply say NO next time. If everyone just refused to comply, the tyranny would end.
I’m a retired physician living in a small town. Everyone knows me and my education. So while my overall profession is not more free, I am. When the local hospital foundation board I had sat on for over a decade ( where I was vice chair) complied with the HHS demand that anyone associated with the hospital must be jabbed or submit an exemption, I refused, sent a scathing letter explaining why, and promptly resigned. Idiots. That woke up several people.
Actually you live inside a complete totalitarian world called the Technosphere.. You serve the economy created by the technosphere and you eat the food provided by the same system. Your survival itself is based on cheap energy, exuberance and obedience. Will you ever be able to do anything without technology, is the real question.
Who wins first if things go to shit is the people already doing the wrong thing. Criminals. That mindset will save you. It’s horrible, but it’s true. Being nice is only a thing in times of relative peace or when you might have a negative consequence for not doing so. In general I’m saying.
It’s surviving long enough for that to happen that’s the tricky part. Is it a month? A year? Two? If it’s more than a month, and you’re to survive, things are going to get shady.
Do you believe that in such a circumstance, you could maintain the moral rules by which, on any given day, you and I believe men should live?
So, for example, the general principle by which we ought to live can be boiled down to these:
Coercive force should never be initiated by one against another (and protective force is justified if it is), and
All transactions ought to be consensual.
So, in these shady circumstances, one would have to dispense justice oneself. Justice would be rough. Justice would be swift. Mistakes might even be made in exigent circumstances.
But…
Would you keep it there? Would you only use protective force? Or would you switch to initiations of coercive force in order to achieve your aims?
I’m 54, retired army guy in South Florida. I can’t possibly defend what I have against a band of lawless savages. I’m not going to go after anyone. More likely die defending myself and my wife. My point is, when you don’t know how long the zombie apocalypse is going to last, that the ones that get the most savage and violent the fastest have a better probability for survival. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it always is until enough decent people band together. Like I said, the key is living that long to help usher in some sanity. Hopefully that’s not a long time, but hope isn’t a plan.
I was part of a half-dozen people trying to save a drowning guy in a fast moving river once and, yes, he would push each one of us down to get above the surface and draw another breath (he was very drunk). One person would let him push then someone else would try to get him up. At some point I realized we were only 25 feet from the bank and would do better just hauling his ass sideways to the beach. It worked, eventually. Was it God or the LSD or both? I'll never know. But he lived to drink another day.
TL; dr - Trudeau continuing to punish Freedom Convoy protesters through Lawfare, and in the case of these guys in Alberta, no trial and no bail, kept in custody for nearly 2 years as political prisoners.
It's horrifying. It is, without a doubt, an act of war.
The question to me is not whether it is *deserving* of protective force in response. It is. Rather, however, I wonder what would actually be most effective in remedying the situation
There is another way: love one another. Lay down your life for your friend if you have to...but irony of ironies, if we approach one another with Christ like love we will develop sovereign symbioses where we all want to help one another - altruism, joyously actually makes you live longer if you don't die in the mean time. I truly believe it is through coming together to give, share, risk together - by being sovereign and loving, that we will make it through. And if any of us don't, I'd much rather die giving my all for the world than kill being my worst.
I was actually just thinking thoughts along these lines a little while ago.
My default is to defend myself against unjust aggression. It would be a tragedy to have to do so, but I would not feel like I had done wrong if the attack had been unprovoked. But then I was wondering under what circumstances I would choose not to fight, even at the cost of my own life. I don’t know.
It certainly would have to be a choice I made for myself alone. IOW, I could not allow my family to be harmed through such a choice. But if I were alone…maybe, under some circumstances.
How about you? Are there circumstances in which you would defend yourself?
On a purely selfish level, I don't want to die afraid. I would rather choose to lay down my life than be terrified of someone taking it. I would much rather face it peacefully than in terror. I truly believe though that those of us who want a sovereign loving world are designed to prosper and we can if we choose to lift and co-create.
It's a great question. I don't make absolutes for myself - I do my best to be tuned in to Divine Will and to keep my heart open and filled with light, and sometimes that is a struggle! I could see myself defending my family, but I am not led to get a gun or anything. I would defend myself if I didn't have to kill someone who was attacking me out of their own survival instincts. But better have compassion for them and let them kill me than take their life. I believe there are better ways than killing for everything. I am not so much a pacifist as a believer that peace is the way. There is a time I would have answered differently. I recommend White Buffalo woman's chapter in the Sophia Code for an attitude toward life taking that is merciful yet unallowing of rape, as an example.
I find violence to be horrifying. I want it to stop. I don’t know what I would do in every circumstance, but I do know that I am sick of it, and sick at the thought of it. It’s all just so sad.
I just did. It is a lovely description of a larger truth. But in terms of feeling it all the way down to my bones, I am going at my own pace, just like the snail in the picture.
Study design: Honokiol has been specified as a novel alternative to treat various disorders such as liver cancer, neuroprotective, anti-spasmodic, antidepressant, anti-tumorigenic, antithrombotic, antimicrobial, analgesic properties and others. Therefore, this study designed to represent the in-depth therapeutic potential of honokiol.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362632/
If you troll her stuff, there are some fascinating treasures I wish more people got to see. But since I am not asking for that death wish, you'll have to search for yourself!
Nanotechnology-Based Drug Delivery Systems for Honokiol: Enhancing Therapeutic Potential and Overcoming Limitations.
Yang J, Shang J, Yang L, Wei D, Wang X, Deng Q, Zhong Z, Ye Y, Zhou M.
Int J Nanomedicine. 2023 Nov 13;18:6639-6665. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S431409. eCollection 2023.
PMID: 38026538 Free PMC article. Review.
They try to hijack all the natural stuff and then hybrid it into something they can profit from or use for whatever. It ain't gonna happen. People will demand labels and choose the non-nano, non-gmo, non-synthetic. <3
For the universe—yes. For each of us as individuals—yes, up to a point. 🤣
"The gentle approach is better when getting around tyranny because the petty tyrant is expecting opposition."
That is an excellent point for the discussion I am having with Max Borders elsewhere in the comments, on the subject of violence in response to tyranny.
Know that feeling all to well of risking it all just for the health of my own self and my family. What a nightmare that was. Even telling people to research or up their vitamins/healthy lifestyle was a risk to my livelihood. Absolutely ridiculous times. 😒
You were one of the people on my mind while writing this.
It will get even uglier when it comes down to one person's survival against another's. When one person is willing to torpedo another person's livelihood to save their own, and the stakes are high on both sides, then it will become "dog-eat-dog" and whomever takes drastic action first will be most likely to prevail and move on to the next round. God help us.
Can we stop it before it gets there?
I pray that we can.
Survival situations will often bring out the worst in bad people but also the best in good people. Too bad history shows us that bad people often greatly outnumber good people.
Bad people are more likely to take drastic action before good people. That's the problem. Bad people tend to act and good people tend to react.
"Bad people tend to act and good people tend to react."
Yes, I observe that to be true of the political right. We always seem to limit ourselves to just reacting to the latest outrage perpetrated by the left. If that's true, could it be because we believe in live-and-let-live, and just want to get on with improving things for ourselves and our families? While bad people have a different agenda.
Okay, so what's the plan for acting first?
We're not there yet, but good people need to be mentally, emotionally, and spiritually prepared to recognize a threat and take steps to neutralize it. That will call for different actions for different situations, but it may become necessary to be ruthless and/or violent. Bad people don't usually have any apprehension to being ruthless or violent. Good people do.
What would be your trigger? What line do you deem uncrossable?
Not sure... It's a long slow pull. I just hope I'll know it when I see it.
I do know that any significant threat to my ability to provide for my family would be a trigger, but as long as I have other options, the threat isn't that significant. I am reading your more recent post and am glad that you (or someone) is discussing this as the time to discuss it seriously is before we find out it's to late to prepare our hearts and minds for what might be coming.
I recall the right move in water when a panicking victim grabs you is to use your arms, jumping-jack style, to sink both of you as deeply and quickly as you can. That makes them let go. We practiced that in Boy Scout camp. (Is there still a Boy Scouts or did the Left destroy it? )
For Covid, I took two Moderna shots and a booster because I was sure I wouldn't be allowed to continue my volunteer science teaching of grade school kids without a vaccination. And I still had faith in govt health agencies. That faith is now virtually gone.
After a few incidents or a couple false-flag events staged by Big Govt, they'll be confiscating money, firearms, gold, homes, etc. all for the "public good". That will make past incidences of "doing the right thing" seem really easy.
I think the Boy Scouts still exists, though not as it was, and possibly not for much longer. Destroying it was probably the goal all along.
Yes, anyone who has ben paying attention has little faith left.
As to your last paragraph, it inspires the same question I am discussing with Max Borders elsewhere in this comment thread: is violence justified in response, and if so, at what point?
How should one characterize a government which has outlawed the possession of precious metals? Which incarcerates a particalar ethnic group? Which allows a few people of wealth to influence every aspect of life? Which allows a cabal to make the nation's money out of thin air and to charge interest? Which demands any arbitrary amount of income to be taken by force, from certain individuals? Which allows aid and support to enemies of the nation by wealthy citizens? Which allows total corruption of the election process? (for what it's worth). Which arbitrarily allows public theft of private property?
And which, in secret, steals intellectual property and destroys the lives of thousands of citizens every year, and with impunity, creates the legal framework for and implements a global genocide.
Totalitarian?
See my conversation in the comments with Max Borders on the subject of violence, and whether violence is justified. Feel free to chime in!
you forgot "kidfucking"
The economist Bob Murphy prompted a serious question, recently: When is it appropriate to use counter-violence? Or, is counter-violence ever the right thing? I realized I don't have a good answer.
Oh goodness, this is indeed a difficult question. I can at least entertain arguments across a spectrum…
Let us begin by acknowledging what I believe to be a baseline view we share: that what we have now, by forcibly violating the consent of the human person, is somewhere between deeply morally problematic and entirely morally impermissible.
Let us also make a terminological distinction between coercive force and the protective force that must be deployed in response to the initiation of coercive force. I believe that we also share the view that protective force is justified in response to coercive force.
I have done philosophical calculus elsewhere that I think justifies (to my satisfaction, at least 🤣) these as baseline presuppositions.
If we are correct about these, then the next essential questions are these: does what we have now rise to the level of coercive force, and if it does not now, when would would it? And then…if and when it does, would protective force be the most effective or most moral option in response?
Let us take one aspect of what we have now and unpack it. How about payroll taxes and Social Security? Thinking it out on the fly…
1. You did not consent to this entire system of governance. It is imposed upon you by force and you are not allowed to opt out and create your own system. They will kill you if you try. This is clearly a violation of human self-ownership. It is violence. BUT…the conservative view rightly notes that this is the way things have been done for a very, very long time. Is it right to just start blowing stuff up based on a philosophical objection—even a correct one—to such a longstanding human institution/phenomenon? Probably not. But then…
2. You did not consent to have such a huge chunk of your earnings taken from you by force in the form of payroll taxes.
3. You did not consent to the fact that you are prevented from earning interest on that money. If the amount taken in payroll taxes were invested in indexed stock accounts over the typical adult working lifetime, even lower-middle-class workers would retire millionaires. Instead, they get back some pathetic portion of what they had taken from them. That is a direct assault on the property and quality of life of the human person. It is not okay.
4. You did not consent to how the government uses the money while it is "storing" it for you. You did not consent to the warfare, the welfare, or the waste. You did not consent to have people murdered with your money, in your name.
5. You did not consent to be given back a pittance at the end of your working life, on their terms, at ages they determine.
6. And you certainly did not consent to have that pittance taxed a second time before they so generously dole it back out to you.
All of this is a clear moral crime. In one strict philosophical-moral analysis, the whole system is worthy of being burned down to the ground. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-M4WXov2lM) The system is arguably that repugnant. This is the case even before we get to full-blown totalitarianism.
But at exactly what target ought such ire, however morally justified, be directed? The IRS agent, who is just doing his job? The politicians, who inherited this system from politicians who inherited it from still more politicians going back a century? The cop with the wife and kids who comes to take you away from not paying your taxes? It's such a mess.
I think we can do better than violence…though violence does certainly get more justified the more the totalitarianism screws get tightened.
Though even there… look at how it got solved in Poland (the Pope and millions of people pouring into the streets). Estonia—through song. The USSR in 1991, in the (almost) bloodless collapse of the regime, which I witnessed with my own eyes. Peace can work!
Part 2
My working outlook for dealing with things as they are now is this:
We begin making the arguments, laying the groundwork, and then negotiating with legacy governments for both territorial and non-territorial opt-out. (None dare call it 'secession'!)
We make the case morally. We make it legally if possible. We proceed always with care, kindness, and, in the words of H-H Hoppe, "diplomatic tact."
We begin acting on it in any way we can. We build momentum, numbers, and legitimacy. We begin approaching critical mass.
It may take five years or 50 or more. All of these actions are our fundamental right as human persons.
At some point, the ball is in their court. What do they do when hundreds, thousands, millions of people express a clear preference? Do they act with violence? Such action would be entirely unjustified.
In other words, we work towards these goals always with a peaceful approach. And if, at some point, violence is initiated by them such that a response is needed, that would be entirely on them.
But I don't think it is going to come to that. I think they are going to collapse, and all we need to do is be ready.
These are, of course, my thoughts on the fly, based on my current thinking. I am open to arguments in any direction on this topic.
I think you and I have gotten up to the same point. But then what? What is the "trigger" as it were?
In the gradual-secession scenario…
When we (or our descendants) formally announce sovereignty and independence and they come to club us??
In the creeping-totalitarianism scenario…
When we peacefully resist and they use violence in response??
Two philosophers walk into a bar...
…and the next thing you know, women are dancing on tabletops and the men are singing a jaunty tune because philosophers are freakin' awesome.
I was blessed to be in a similar position. My livelihood and professional status were not at risk making my non compliance much easier. I did not mask. I did not follow the arrows. I defiantly marched into stores with masking signs posted. No one said a word to me. I definitely didn’t take the poison jabs. I am so saddened what my profession has become. When pushed even a little, the vast majority complied. I hope they have learned something and simply say NO next time. If everyone just refused to comply, the tyranny would end.
I am glad to hear that you were in a freer profession!
I did not get by without people saying anything to me. I had several encounters and one that almost came to blows…
I’m a retired physician living in a small town. Everyone knows me and my education. So while my overall profession is not more free, I am. When the local hospital foundation board I had sat on for over a decade ( where I was vice chair) complied with the HHS demand that anyone associated with the hospital must be jabbed or submit an exemption, I refused, sent a scathing letter explaining why, and promptly resigned. Idiots. That woke up several people.
Wow! From what I have heard, very few healthcare professionals took such a stand. (I wonder what the actual percentage is.)
Hats off to you!!
"If everyone just refused to comply, the tyranny would end."
And yet people just keep complying. Have they/we learned anything? I certainly think more have. Will it be enough when the time comes? I hope so!
Actually you live inside a complete totalitarian world called the Technosphere.. You serve the economy created by the technosphere and you eat the food provided by the same system. Your survival itself is based on cheap energy, exuberance and obedience. Will you ever be able to do anything without technology, is the real question.
Working on it!
❤️❤️
Who wins first if things go to shit is the people already doing the wrong thing. Criminals. That mindset will save you. It’s horrible, but it’s true. Being nice is only a thing in times of relative peace or when you might have a negative consequence for not doing so. In general I’m saying.
I get what you're saying. But ultimately, order gets restored, and it gets restored by the cooperative people who want peace.
It’s surviving long enough for that to happen that’s the tricky part. Is it a month? A year? Two? If it’s more than a month, and you’re to survive, things are going to get shady.
Do you believe that in such a circumstance, you could maintain the moral rules by which, on any given day, you and I believe men should live?
So, for example, the general principle by which we ought to live can be boiled down to these:
Coercive force should never be initiated by one against another (and protective force is justified if it is), and
All transactions ought to be consensual.
So, in these shady circumstances, one would have to dispense justice oneself. Justice would be rough. Justice would be swift. Mistakes might even be made in exigent circumstances.
But…
Would you keep it there? Would you only use protective force? Or would you switch to initiations of coercive force in order to achieve your aims?
I’m 54, retired army guy in South Florida. I can’t possibly defend what I have against a band of lawless savages. I’m not going to go after anyone. More likely die defending myself and my wife. My point is, when you don’t know how long the zombie apocalypse is going to last, that the ones that get the most savage and violent the fastest have a better probability for survival. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it always is until enough decent people band together. Like I said, the key is living that long to help usher in some sanity. Hopefully that’s not a long time, but hope isn’t a plan.
What you say makes sense.
I am the same age. I would like to be further out into the country, where the population density is lower. Now if I can only convince my wife…
I was part of a half-dozen people trying to save a drowning guy in a fast moving river once and, yes, he would push each one of us down to get above the surface and draw another breath (he was very drunk). One person would let him push then someone else would try to get him up. At some point I realized we were only 25 feet from the bank and would do better just hauling his ass sideways to the beach. It worked, eventually. Was it God or the LSD or both? I'll never know. But he lived to drink another day.
Wild!
Sometimes LSD helps…
There are many in Canada refusing to acknowledge the problem, much less do the right thing.
https://open.substack.com/pub/autonomoustruckers/p/the-lawfare-archipelago
I am unable to read that long post at the moment. Can you give me the gist? I do recognize that the situation is even worse in Canada than here.
TL; dr - Trudeau continuing to punish Freedom Convoy protesters through Lawfare, and in the case of these guys in Alberta, no trial and no bail, kept in custody for nearly 2 years as political prisoners.
Amongst many others.
It's horrifying. It is, without a doubt, an act of war.
The question to me is not whether it is *deserving* of protective force in response. It is. Rather, however, I wonder what would actually be most effective in remedying the situation
There is another way: love one another. Lay down your life for your friend if you have to...but irony of ironies, if we approach one another with Christ like love we will develop sovereign symbioses where we all want to help one another - altruism, joyously actually makes you live longer if you don't die in the mean time. I truly believe it is through coming together to give, share, risk together - by being sovereign and loving, that we will make it through. And if any of us don't, I'd much rather die giving my all for the world than kill being my worst.
I was actually just thinking thoughts along these lines a little while ago.
My default is to defend myself against unjust aggression. It would be a tragedy to have to do so, but I would not feel like I had done wrong if the attack had been unprovoked. But then I was wondering under what circumstances I would choose not to fight, even at the cost of my own life. I don’t know.
It certainly would have to be a choice I made for myself alone. IOW, I could not allow my family to be harmed through such a choice. But if I were alone…maybe, under some circumstances.
How about you? Are there circumstances in which you would defend yourself?
On a purely selfish level, I don't want to die afraid. I would rather choose to lay down my life than be terrified of someone taking it. I would much rather face it peacefully than in terror. I truly believe though that those of us who want a sovereign loving world are designed to prosper and we can if we choose to lift and co-create.
🔥❤️
It's a great question. I don't make absolutes for myself - I do my best to be tuned in to Divine Will and to keep my heart open and filled with light, and sometimes that is a struggle! I could see myself defending my family, but I am not led to get a gun or anything. I would defend myself if I didn't have to kill someone who was attacking me out of their own survival instincts. But better have compassion for them and let them kill me than take their life. I believe there are better ways than killing for everything. I am not so much a pacifist as a believer that peace is the way. There is a time I would have answered differently. I recommend White Buffalo woman's chapter in the Sophia Code for an attitude toward life taking that is merciful yet unallowing of rape, as an example.
I find violence to be horrifying. I want it to stop. I don’t know what I would do in every circumstance, but I do know that I am sick of it, and sick at the thought of it. It’s all just so sad.
Agreed.
Did you read my heretic post?
I just did. It is a lovely description of a larger truth. But in terms of feeling it all the way down to my bones, I am going at my own pace, just like the snail in the picture.
Study design: Honokiol has been specified as a novel alternative to treat various disorders such as liver cancer, neuroprotective, anti-spasmodic, antidepressant, anti-tumorigenic, antithrombotic, antimicrobial, analgesic properties and others. Therefore, this study designed to represent the in-depth therapeutic potential of honokiol.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362632/
I have never even heard of it 🫢
If you troll her stuff, there are some fascinating treasures I wish more people got to see. But since I am not asking for that death wish, you'll have to search for yourself!
Course you gotta watch out for stuff like
Nanotechnology-Based Drug Delivery Systems for Honokiol: Enhancing Therapeutic Potential and Overcoming Limitations.
Yang J, Shang J, Yang L, Wei D, Wang X, Deng Q, Zhong Z, Ye Y, Zhou M.
Int J Nanomedicine. 2023 Nov 13;18:6639-6665. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S431409. eCollection 2023.
PMID: 38026538 Free PMC article. Review.
They try to hijack all the natural stuff and then hybrid it into something they can profit from or use for whatever. It ain't gonna happen. People will demand labels and choose the non-nano, non-gmo, non-synthetic. <3
:) <3 My former self wrote a piece on a ton of research about Magnolia bark. <3
Wow—even Healthline seems unequivocally positive about it: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/magnolia-bark
Do you have a brand or formulation that you like?
I love your honesty and openness! <3 And Thank you.
"There is always next time. Right?"
For the universe—yes. For each of us as individuals—yes, up to a point. 🤣
"The gentle approach is better when getting around tyranny because the petty tyrant is expecting opposition."
That is an excellent point for the discussion I am having with Max Borders elsewhere in the comments, on the subject of violence in response to tyranny.