Interesting analysis. But throughout it seems as if the government is the main issue when in fact it is but a sideshow. The US is run,as I know from my time in DC, by multinational corporations and banks, private equity, and occasionally the strategic teams of billionaires. Although bureaucrats sometimes have real power because of the number of people who work for them,or the size of their budgets,they are small fish. Corporations for profit, not the incompetent but harmless, bureaucrats, are the ones responsible for what we have because corporations are simply another form of government, but one more totalitarian.
Yes, it isn't only government. But government gives corporations a power vector to do things to us that they simply would not otherwise be able to do.
"Here, we can take some money from the people and give it to you."
"Here, we can mandate that they must take your vaccine." In fact, we will tax them and then make it "free" and give the money to you!"
"Here, gain control of this regulatory agency, and then you can write the rules by which you are governed. We will distribute the costs to taxpayers."
"Here, we will create fiat currency, and forbid people from using any other currency, and then we will, through the magic of the Cantillion Effect, ensure that you profit, and by the time the effects of inflation are felt by the rabble, you will already have gotten rich."
Without government, business has none of those powers.
I am not saying that business would be lily-white without government, but they would have a tougher time than they do WITH government.
On the "democracy" point, I agree with the obvious absurdity with the one vote out of millions, but if we go from the other direction, there is an argument from mathematical induction. A small social structure is indeed able to form a consensus by voting, so long as their basic priorities are aligned. Are we sure that the problem is the voting, and not the basic priorities not being aligned?
There are better and worse ways to do voting. The Swiss do it better, from what I have heard. And the smaller the group, the easier. But as far as I know, there is no system of voting that can produce fully consensual results.
I read somewhere that nearly everyone is a descendant of a common ancestor if one goes back far enough in time. Being a descendant of Eleanor of Aquitaine is not notable for those of European descent as many Americans are. Eleanor of Aquitaine is in my family tree. I suspect Eleanor is in the family tree of tens of millions of Americans. While an interesting thought experiment, it stands to reason that nearly all U.S. presidents would be descendants of Eleanor. We're all distant cousins, if one goes back far enough.
Yeah, this is something I considered, and discussed with Starfire Codes (part of that discussion in on her recent Scroll post: https://www.starfirecodes.com/p/the-scroll-my-computer-just-became-self-aware). I do know that a single person in the past tends to have a lot of descendents. I just don't know how many. But it could be a heck of a lot!
Ordinary people who manage to get elected are, as you say, rare, and they aren't tolerated for very long. Witness the murder of Paul Wellstone when he was running for his third term as US senator. In a plane crash, black box never found, one of their favorite ways to do away with pesky people who challenge the game.
Was Wellstone an ordinary person? The only thing I remember about that whole event was, IIRC, the Dems turned his funeral into a kind of campaign rally/political event. Very poor taste.
I think he was ordinary, in the sense of not being from an old time ruling family or a background of financial wealth. He was a professor of political science at the college that I went to, and his first year teaching was my freshman year. He was maybe 26 at that time. I never took a class from him, but he was known by everyone on campus. He had a hard time getting tenure because he was a rabble-rouser and a rebel, but he did. He was very involved in protesting the installation of huge powerlines across the farmland in Minnesota in the 1970s, which were causing health problems for cattle and humans (kind of a precursor to EMF radiation). Then he ran for office, and had a very grassroots campaign. He was elected twice. There were signs that he was starting to take on the beltway mentality, I thought, but apparently the powers that be had enough of him after two terms, and decided to make sure he would not be reelected. Because he probably would have. The plane crash was about a week before the election in late October that year.
Do you remember what Jeri Ryan did to Jack Ryan, which paved the way for Obama? Accused him of all sorts of weird stuff, just in time to get Obama elected to his first big office…
No, the party selected Walter Mondale to be the candidate. He had been, as you may remember, vice president, and had been a presidential candidate also. A very well-known DFL figure in Minnesota politics.
We can build a basic system with consent and natural law in which people will naturally have spontaneous order without the establishment of government based upon slavery with consent and natural law at its foundation in our new system that puts individuals back behind the wheel (so to speak) of their own lives. Let's rip the band aid off and not peel it back slowly and painfully. 🙏
Yes, that is the serpentine system of oppression we have been controlled by since our founding and the idea of a two party system going back to the Greeks who created it.
In a past exchange with me, you stated that all governments, regardless of level, have common faults. Since you don’t strike me as the type to advocate anarchy for the sheer hell of it, I’m curious about whether the model of the republic, with its checks and balances, is decisively better in your mind than democracy, with its pure version being mere mob rule.
In the past, I simply parroted the Founders. They said that direct democracy is bad and the republic is better, so it must be true. But why did they say that?
Was it…
1. just a reference to history—to the demise of the democracies of classical antiquity?
2. a reference to the fact that a simple majority-rule system (arithmocracy) can vote on anything, including things that violate rights of individuals?
3. because they were all from an aristocratic caste and had varying degrees of distaste for commoners?
4. because they understood all too well the points I have been making for the last 18 months—that NO system that uses voting can actually be consonant with the principles in which they believed......and so they built a system with more roadblocks in between individual persons and that inherent tyranny?
I think it was all of these.
1. They knew history very well. They did not have much to go by in terms of the kind of system they were trying to create, so they had to look to history and try to avoid its mistakes. (That of course raises the question of why they did not look to the equally tyrannical demise of the Roman Republic as a cautionary tale.)
2. They were correct about the arithmocracy part.
3. They were mostly from an aristocratic caste, but they were not all the same (contrary to the monolithic way we treat them now). Hamilton and Jay definitely won out. The Constitution was their baby, and Madison's. Hamilton and Jay definitely did not like the commoners.
4. I think they knew danged well that their system violated the very principles that they believed in. But they simply could not think of anything better. (And again, the Articles of Confederation was much closer to those principles, but Hamilton conspired with his rich industrialist buddies to murder that in favor of the must less rights-protective Constitution.) So they built in inefficiencies, basically. More different levels and layers and branches and rules to slow things down. To make it more difficult for the arithmocracy problem to menace people. They made the process intentionally clunky and difficult.
The end result is that you still have a system that suffers from all the moral problems of democracy, but has a few extra buffers in place. And the end result of that is that you have a system that becomes just as corrupted as a democracy with few of those buffers…it just takes a little longer to do so.
All the moral problems are exactly the same, though. Neither republic nor democracy is consensual as a whole system (you did not consent to be governed by either). Neither republic nor democracy is consensual in the way it functions (things will be done to you to which you did not consent whether you vote or not).
So ultimately, in a fundamental sense, both systems are equally morally impermissible. One is just intentionally clunkier, which slows down the tyranny and decay a little.
Like when the global government is in full power, what will these clowns have left to do? Fight amongst themselves for a higher position in their wacko hierarchy. That is when the slaves will have a great opportunity to break free. Nothing is static. When the clowns see that they too are expendable, they just might grow half a brain and revolt against their masters. Up to this point, global slavery has failed miserably. Government always has to play whack-a-mole as the citizens never sit still for long.
In the book that is entitled, "The Psychology of Totalitarianism," the statistician and clinical psychologist Mattais Desmet reveals that the cognitive error of mistaking a "complex" physical system for a "non-complex" physical system on the part of a large subset of the people of a given country is a precursosr to totalitarian rule over this country., where a "complex" physical system exhibits one or more "emergent properties," each of which is a property of the whole system and not of the separate parts of this system whereas a "non complex" physical system exhibits no such properties. To retain our freedoms, we Americans must not make this mistake ourselves.
And it is money that is the glue. (My definition of money: anything We use to account for the energy We input into a system. This can be trade, barter, work exchange, shells, beads, sticks notched and split, coins (metals), bills (paper), or electronic bits (or anything else used for that purpose).)
In societies that emerged in abundance, where all needed things were there for the taking, no money emerged. No ensuring everyOne added Their "fair share" of energy into a system. These were few and far between, being "island paradises" almost exclusively, and vanished when the "western world" took over.
In these societies, the caring Ones took care of things, and any psychopaths had no power handle to take over. Rather, They learned to choose Their behavior Ethically or be cast out (or killed). The People did things for the social currency They received: Thanks, appreciation, gratitude, admiration, and such. And overall, the People were happy, creative, kind, loving, joyful, and... Free.
There was no poverty...
Today, though We are "post-scarcity" (no political baggage attached!), We are kept attached to government/slavery by virtue of having to account for Our energy added into the system. And for a while now... The psychopaths promoted to the top with the handle of money (money=power) hide the technologies that would end the point of accounting for Our energy.
To be most successful in ending the money/government/slavery, I suggest We do all We can to get free energy tech out in the open - without patents, which alert Them and They will swoop in and take it, one way or another - and though I be elderly, targeted, disabled, destitute, and homeless, and so cannot produce it Myself, I offer what I know of one such tech:
Yes, there have been a suspiciously large number of people who have died right before they were abut to bring their free energy concept to the patent office!
Interesting analysis. But throughout it seems as if the government is the main issue when in fact it is but a sideshow. The US is run,as I know from my time in DC, by multinational corporations and banks, private equity, and occasionally the strategic teams of billionaires. Although bureaucrats sometimes have real power because of the number of people who work for them,or the size of their budgets,they are small fish. Corporations for profit, not the incompetent but harmless, bureaucrats, are the ones responsible for what we have because corporations are simply another form of government, but one more totalitarian.
Yes, it isn't only government. But government gives corporations a power vector to do things to us that they simply would not otherwise be able to do.
"Here, we can take some money from the people and give it to you."
"Here, we can mandate that they must take your vaccine." In fact, we will tax them and then make it "free" and give the money to you!"
"Here, gain control of this regulatory agency, and then you can write the rules by which you are governed. We will distribute the costs to taxpayers."
"Here, we will create fiat currency, and forbid people from using any other currency, and then we will, through the magic of the Cantillion Effect, ensure that you profit, and by the time the effects of inflation are felt by the rabble, you will already have gotten rich."
Without government, business has none of those powers.
I am not saying that business would be lily-white without government, but they would have a tougher time than they do WITH government.
A brilliant evisceration of the system that we live under. Thanks.
🙏🏻
Excellent and on target Christopher!
On the "democracy" point, I agree with the obvious absurdity with the one vote out of millions, but if we go from the other direction, there is an argument from mathematical induction. A small social structure is indeed able to form a consensus by voting, so long as their basic priorities are aligned. Are we sure that the problem is the voting, and not the basic priorities not being aligned?
There are better and worse ways to do voting. The Swiss do it better, from what I have heard. And the smaller the group, the easier. But as far as I know, there is no system of voting that can produce fully consensual results.
The problem with voting is that priorities are seldom aligned throughout. 51% want this, 49% want that - what 51% want happens and 49% get screwed.
Or... Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
I read somewhere that nearly everyone is a descendant of a common ancestor if one goes back far enough in time. Being a descendant of Eleanor of Aquitaine is not notable for those of European descent as many Americans are. Eleanor of Aquitaine is in my family tree. I suspect Eleanor is in the family tree of tens of millions of Americans. While an interesting thought experiment, it stands to reason that nearly all U.S. presidents would be descendants of Eleanor. We're all distant cousins, if one goes back far enough.
Yeah, this is something I considered, and discussed with Starfire Codes (part of that discussion in on her recent Scroll post: https://www.starfirecodes.com/p/the-scroll-my-computer-just-became-self-aware). I do know that a single person in the past tends to have a lot of descendents. I just don't know how many. But it could be a heck of a lot!
What does “voting” actually mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX-sIMneUbw
Listening while I fold laundry!
Ordinary people who manage to get elected are, as you say, rare, and they aren't tolerated for very long. Witness the murder of Paul Wellstone when he was running for his third term as US senator. In a plane crash, black box never found, one of their favorite ways to do away with pesky people who challenge the game.
Was Wellstone an ordinary person? The only thing I remember about that whole event was, IIRC, the Dems turned his funeral into a kind of campaign rally/political event. Very poor taste.
I think he was ordinary, in the sense of not being from an old time ruling family or a background of financial wealth. He was a professor of political science at the college that I went to, and his first year teaching was my freshman year. He was maybe 26 at that time. I never took a class from him, but he was known by everyone on campus. He had a hard time getting tenure because he was a rabble-rouser and a rebel, but he did. He was very involved in protesting the installation of huge powerlines across the farmland in Minnesota in the 1970s, which were causing health problems for cattle and humans (kind of a precursor to EMF radiation). Then he ran for office, and had a very grassroots campaign. He was elected twice. There were signs that he was starting to take on the beltway mentality, I thought, but apparently the powers that be had enough of him after two terms, and decided to make sure he would not be reelected. Because he probably would have. The plane crash was about a week before the election in late October that year.
Do you remember what Jeri Ryan did to Jack Ryan, which paved the way for Obama? Accused him of all sorts of weird stuff, just in time to get Obama elected to his first big office…
No, I don't recall that. Dirty politics is never surprising.
Very interesting. Did his wife replace him on the ballot? I don’t recall now.
No, the party selected Walter Mondale to be the candidate. He had been, as you may remember, vice president, and had been a presidential candidate also. A very well-known DFL figure in Minnesota politics.
Sure, of course I remember Mondale. And now that you mention it, I remember Mondale was his replacement. The fix was in, it seems!
We can build a basic system with consent and natural law in which people will naturally have spontaneous order without the establishment of government based upon slavery with consent and natural law at its foundation in our new system that puts individuals back behind the wheel (so to speak) of their own lives. Let's rip the band aid off and not peel it back slowly and painfully. 🙏
Needless to say, I am with you.
But how to do that without angering the statists and the moochers and the psychopathic control freaks—that is the big question!
Yeah, that's the snare we have to figure out. I'll do some more brainstorming on the methodology and approach.
Me too! I will be writing about all this as we move forward. I am happy to hear any ideas you have.
Yes, that is the serpentine system of oppression we have been controlled by since our founding and the idea of a two party system going back to the Greeks who created it.
In a past exchange with me, you stated that all governments, regardless of level, have common faults. Since you don’t strike me as the type to advocate anarchy for the sheer hell of it, I’m curious about whether the model of the republic, with its checks and balances, is decisively better in your mind than democracy, with its pure version being mere mob rule.
Big question. Lots to unpack.
In the past, I simply parroted the Founders. They said that direct democracy is bad and the republic is better, so it must be true. But why did they say that?
Was it…
1. just a reference to history—to the demise of the democracies of classical antiquity?
2. a reference to the fact that a simple majority-rule system (arithmocracy) can vote on anything, including things that violate rights of individuals?
3. because they were all from an aristocratic caste and had varying degrees of distaste for commoners?
4. because they understood all too well the points I have been making for the last 18 months—that NO system that uses voting can actually be consonant with the principles in which they believed......and so they built a system with more roadblocks in between individual persons and that inherent tyranny?
I think it was all of these.
1. They knew history very well. They did not have much to go by in terms of the kind of system they were trying to create, so they had to look to history and try to avoid its mistakes. (That of course raises the question of why they did not look to the equally tyrannical demise of the Roman Republic as a cautionary tale.)
2. They were correct about the arithmocracy part.
3. They were mostly from an aristocratic caste, but they were not all the same (contrary to the monolithic way we treat them now). Hamilton and Jay definitely won out. The Constitution was their baby, and Madison's. Hamilton and Jay definitely did not like the commoners.
4. I think they knew danged well that their system violated the very principles that they believed in. But they simply could not think of anything better. (And again, the Articles of Confederation was much closer to those principles, but Hamilton conspired with his rich industrialist buddies to murder that in favor of the must less rights-protective Constitution.) So they built in inefficiencies, basically. More different levels and layers and branches and rules to slow things down. To make it more difficult for the arithmocracy problem to menace people. They made the process intentionally clunky and difficult.
The end result is that you still have a system that suffers from all the moral problems of democracy, but has a few extra buffers in place. And the end result of that is that you have a system that becomes just as corrupted as a democracy with few of those buffers…it just takes a little longer to do so.
All the moral problems are exactly the same, though. Neither republic nor democracy is consensual as a whole system (you did not consent to be governed by either). Neither republic nor democracy is consensual in the way it functions (things will be done to you to which you did not consent whether you vote or not).
So ultimately, in a fundamental sense, both systems are equally morally impermissible. One is just intentionally clunkier, which slows down the tyranny and decay a little.
Like when the global government is in full power, what will these clowns have left to do? Fight amongst themselves for a higher position in their wacko hierarchy. That is when the slaves will have a great opportunity to break free. Nothing is static. When the clowns see that they too are expendable, they just might grow half a brain and revolt against their masters. Up to this point, global slavery has failed miserably. Government always has to play whack-a-mole as the citizens never sit still for long.
All sorts of different opportunities may present themselves. We cannot assume that the way things are is the way things will always be.
Brilliant
🙏🏻
I'm with you.
🙏🏻
Dear Christopher:
In the book that is entitled, "The Psychology of Totalitarianism," the statistician and clinical psychologist Mattais Desmet reveals that the cognitive error of mistaking a "complex" physical system for a "non-complex" physical system on the part of a large subset of the people of a given country is a precursosr to totalitarian rule over this country., where a "complex" physical system exhibits one or more "emergent properties," each of which is a property of the whole system and not of the separate parts of this system whereas a "non complex" physical system exhibits no such properties. To retain our freedoms, we Americans must not make this mistake ourselves.
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, California, USA
1-650-518-5535 (mobile)
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com (email)
Yep. But this is information you have already shared with us. Feel free also to share other things!
And it is money that is the glue. (My definition of money: anything We use to account for the energy We input into a system. This can be trade, barter, work exchange, shells, beads, sticks notched and split, coins (metals), bills (paper), or electronic bits (or anything else used for that purpose).)
In societies that emerged in abundance, where all needed things were there for the taking, no money emerged. No ensuring everyOne added Their "fair share" of energy into a system. These were few and far between, being "island paradises" almost exclusively, and vanished when the "western world" took over.
In these societies, the caring Ones took care of things, and any psychopaths had no power handle to take over. Rather, They learned to choose Their behavior Ethically or be cast out (or killed). The People did things for the social currency They received: Thanks, appreciation, gratitude, admiration, and such. And overall, the People were happy, creative, kind, loving, joyful, and... Free.
There was no poverty...
Today, though We are "post-scarcity" (no political baggage attached!), We are kept attached to government/slavery by virtue of having to account for Our energy added into the system. And for a while now... The psychopaths promoted to the top with the handle of money (money=power) hide the technologies that would end the point of accounting for Our energy.
To be most successful in ending the money/government/slavery, I suggest We do all We can to get free energy tech out in the open - without patents, which alert Them and They will swoop in and take it, one way or another - and though I be elderly, targeted, disabled, destitute, and homeless, and so cannot produce it Myself, I offer what I know of one such tech:
Electrogravitics – My Knowledge of Free Energy (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/electrogravitics-my-knowledge-of
Perhaps You, the reader, will be the One to earn great social currency - lauds, fame, adoration, and more.....
Yes, there have been a suspiciously large number of people who have died right before they were abut to bring their free energy concept to the patent office!
Indeed!!! If They had just let it out there, We all would be living richly on Our planet! As We should be, each of Us having a share of the wealth...
Trusts: The Big Heist Against Humanity (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/trusts-the-big-heist-against-humanity
None of us actually own the planet.
That's just the truth.
Your title holding is what sets up groups of people being able to displace and deny others to share the surface of a planet you don't own.
So way to uphold the purposeful division of real estate.
I understand the need for personal property.
But no property is actually private as it IS shared by all types of life forms who didn't apply for or pay for permission to be on it.