The myth of the limited solution
by Jon Rappoport
October 17, 2013
From a certain angle, history could be called the sum of succeeding limited solutions to basic problems. The result is a pile and a mess, which appears to have no exit, except more limited solutions.
On and on it goes.
You hear people say, “WELL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the only thing we can do now is X.”
In other words, things are so far gone, so muddled, there can be no going back to the original basic problem. There can be no working on the basic problem. The basic problem is buried so deep, it can’t be retrieved and resolved.
Imagine a nation whose people, over the course of a few hundred years, have undergone a vast reduction in intelligence. At this point, a small group asserts, “If we few, who have somehow retained our IQ, want to communicate with these morons, we’ll have to deploy horrifically simplified language and ideas. We’ll have to bring them, one tiny step at a time, toward an even rudimentary consciousness about life, current affairs, and situations that need repair.”
“Only limited solutions will work.”
But this doesn’t pan out. It only serves to make things worse. The morons inevitably pervert these limited solutions and parlay them into more problems. Each glint of light turns into a cloud of darkness.
The history of public relations reveals these developments. Finding simpler and simpler ways to reach audiences, PR people discover they have to resort to more infantile strategies, because the audience is becoming more brain-addled.
No, it turns out that the way to resolve all this is to return to the beginning, where the corruption first took place.
That’s the place where individual freedom, power, imagination, and the desire for uncompromising justice were bent and twisted.
Returning to the beginning works because people never really forget. They try to, they pretend to, but they don’t.
Somewhere down deep, they recall freedom and power and they want it again. Somewhere down deep, they aren’t morons at all.
If you can strike THERE, astonishing things can happen. A tremendous amount of spoilage and degradation and passivity can ignite and burn off.
But this requires faith, and it requires the knowledge that time (opportunity) is endless. There is no deadline, despite all appearances.
This also requires realizing that offering limited solutions geared to severely limited minds accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you want.
There is a further temptation. Often it is the limited solution that has backing, money, significant support, whereas striking at the heart of the problem and addressing it begins to pay dividends with only a whisper of a few people.
Imagine this: In the year 2982, all 600 million Americans are getting their food from Government Central bins. Instead of taking five of these people out to a farm in the wild and showing them food at its source, in nature, emerging from the earth in the rain and sun, you decide the way to go is:
“Let’s try to wean 500 million people away from the packets of ketchup at Central. It’s a start. If we can do that, then we might be able to show them the mayo is a bad idea. And then we can work on revelations about the fries…”
But lo and behold, this doesn’t yield positive results. People don’t seem to care about attacks on ketchup. They yawn and tear open the packets and squeeze the red stuff on their fedburgers.
“Well,” you say, “maybe we aimed too high. Let’s go slower. Let’s reboot and attack aspartame packets for the coffee. You see, people can always resort to sugar. They have an option. Let’s promote sugar, not aspartame…”
But again, nothing. No results.
Whereas, if you said, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL FOOD IS EVIL AND AN ASSAULT ON YOUR FREEDOM, a few people, at first, would wake up to the basic problem. A small spark, but one that travels deep.
Now you’re dealing with the subconscious memory of all 500 million people, where the desire for freedom still lives, where instinctive knowledge of what’s evil still resides.
Despite media attacks on Ron Paul, despite arguments about his credentials, his past record, his “horrendous” potential to steal votes from Republican candidates, when he said LET’S BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME FROM AROUND THE WORLD NOW, a hundred thousand people started to wake up that day.
“What are we doing with all those soldiers of ours? Why are they overseas in hundreds of places? What the hell is this? What’s our agenda? BRING THEM HOME. The Constitution specifies military force for direct defense of the United States, that’s all. BRING THEM ALL HOME.”
Paul didn’t say, “I believe we can soon initiate a partial draw down of troops in the area surrounding Kabul, given that our effort to build A-frames and swimming pools in Afghan villages are bearing fruit…”
The method of limited solution is a mirror of what the individual tends to do with his own mind. He looks for potential answers that swim across the surface, answers that appear clever, “in light of what he’s dealing with.”
As opposed to going to the place where his freedom and power live.
Jon Rappoport
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
[…] Jon Rappoport’s Blog […]
I agree with you Jon that limited solutions are worse than nothing at all. However, as I spelled out in my open letter to you, I think that governmental solutions, even of the ‘limited government’ type that Ron Paul offers, fall into that category.
http://consentient.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/an-open-letter-to-jon-rappoport/
If there is to be a recovery, it has to be purely organic and voluntary.
This invites (as Jon suggests) what amounts to “only a whisper of a few people” to “strike at the heart of the problem (until) addressing it begins to pay dividends…” Such revolutionary vision is not about voting, politics, consensus, or power over others, but about a new level of clarity, distinction, and understanding of how to bring differences of nature and preference into voluntary benevolent relationship. I believe very few among humanity are currently ready for this. Your startlingly clear writing and incisive questions are moving rapidly in that direction.
One obvious challenge is that of defining the words “freedom” and “voluntary” in a way that is meaningful for those of us who are thrown together into the same limited space upon this planet. What and where are the boundaries, limits, or edges of those concepts in practical action? What is a workable meaning of “ownership” and what are its limits?
I notice that Andrew J. Galambos who founded the “Free Enterprise Institute” is not on your list of authors, but he grappled creatively with these issues. I finished Ayn Rand’s novels in seventh grade, and based on my interest was invited / allowed to attend Galambos’ lectures in eighth grade. Experiencing these two thinkers at work set my mind on fire and utterly changed (and probably saved) my life. L. von Mises and the rest came later. Rand seemed not to get beyond “limited government” except within “Galt’s Gultch,” but Galambos went at this issue head on and with great creativity.
I don’t suggest that he, or anyone else has “the answers” at this point, but observing his efforts might inspire your own. Amazon lists two books for him taken from his lectures. You can make your own assessment. Jon also has a link (which I haven’t listened to) @ http://www.truthseeker.com/authors.htm
Thanks for your kind words. I am trying to confront what I think are the most important questions, and I appreciate the all-too-rare considered responses from people such as yourself, who have taken the time to read what I’ve written and engage with it.
In response to your points on definition, I couldn’t agree more. Whole swathes of supposedly-liberatory theory has been completely derailed by too narrow or too hazy a focus on what freedom actually is. Anarchism, for example, is a political philosophy that, at heart, tries to find a way for people with completely different sets of values to live together, in order to preserve the kind of mass societies that anarchists presumably see as good, else they would challenge them more. It also is seemingly only capable of imagining governments as perpetrators, and not corporate oligarchs, vicious parents and tribal chieftains. Through a lack of imagination and also research, anarchism has rendered itself almost wholly redundant to those masses of people beginning to awake to the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world.
Those people could, if properly motivated and informed, seek to live in enclave communities, culturally and physically distant from the destructive civilizations-of-origin; it is this method that forms the centerpiece of my practical prescriptions, and I’ve written about it at some length if you care to peruse my writings further.
Thanks for the recommendation. I have not read (or even heard of) Galambos, so will give him a try.
By the way, for a thinker to make it onto my short list requires very special messages indeed.
Jon is on there because he deals with the most relevant issues of the days in stark yet beautiful language. My open letter briefly mentions my love of his writing, but I could write whole reams on it if I wanted, such is my love for his words. I’ve never seen anyone consistently and prolifically produce such incredible work.
My open letter simply tries to draw his attention to that which is the biggest disagreement between us. I hope someday to receive a reply.
http://consentient.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/an-open-letter-to-jon-rappoport/
Well, I’m not Jon and can’t speak for him – but I read your blog post. We agree on many points, but in my opinion, people get bogged down in certain details.
No, America has never been at any time an actual ‘Heaven on Earth’. As long as this planet is peopled by flawed human beings that will never take place. I doubt that Ron Paul is under any delusions on that score. He has said many times that it comes down to what the people want and are willing to make happen. That said, the core of the American Ideal came from the Age of the Enlightenment. It was born out of the idea that human beings had inherent natural rights and that people should command their own lives. This was a drastic departure from previous world history. (Of course, it met with great resistance from the ruling parties in power.)
To me it comes down to supporting that which promotes and advances individual human liberty and potential (while not infringing on the rights of others). The battle has always been between freedom/creativity and control.
The psychopaths who seek to control everything are at war against freedom/creativity – that is, against the very heart of the human soul. (In this, they will ultimately fail.) They see freedom/creativity as a potential threat to their control, and in this they are correct. Independent, free thinking, creative people cannot be controlled. (Though they may freely come together and consent to support a common purpose.) We need to address directly actions that seek to limit our freedom & creativity – – – and put it in those terms. For example, the debate on Obama-care has often been framed in terms of ‘cost reduction’ and ‘health care for everyone’. I haven’t really heard strong arguments made based upon asking whether anyone has the right to force something like this on others. And I haven’t heard anyone stress having the right to creatively come up with their own solutions. Ron Paul did point out that healthcare used to be something affordable that people were able to pay for themselves. But, others seem to get bogged down in the details presented by the controllers and those who are their useful dupes. They allow others to frame the issue. They don’t ask why healthcare is so expensive now and what can be done about it. (I won’t even get into the ultimate purpose of the use of the govt ‘healthcare” system as a weapon against the people. It fails based upon the rationale for it that the controllers feed the public, alone.)
I’ve used the ‘hard approach’ when bringing these kind of issues up with others. Its often generated anger and strained relationships. Peoples long held view of the world was challenged. I’ve used the ‘soft approach’ and in that case it didn’t elicit any response at all. Nothing fundamental was challenged. They were left in their comfort zone and did nothing.
I think I’ll use a different approach now. Show how peoples freedoms are being stolen & express confidence in their ability to come up with creative solutions that work for them. Perhaps this will speak to the soul in others.
I think Ron Paul’s greatest contributions are his speaking about Liberty, educating others, and especially the next generation (and their parents) with his new home school curriculum. These are actions to support freedom and creativity. Regards – – –
Well… If you look at the English language, you can see one place where corruption took place…
but of course, no one listens to me… & if they do, they don’t give me credit.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!! and bravo, Jon.
All I can add is, does fructose hinder the brains neurons and make you fat as well (dumb & lazy)? I am becoming confoosed with all this faux “PR” science…..;-)
I love Ron Paul. He has done a tremendous service to awakening people in our country (as have you), and he has a good heart (as I know you do, too). But, with all due respect, Ron Paul didn’t win. He also talks about false flags, but to my knowledge has never publicly gotten to the heart of the fact that 9/11 was a doozy of a false flag, a linchpin in the police state of big government encroachment. He’s an important PART of the freedom movement, but at least until recently, most people have thought he’s a complete “whackadoodle” (perhaps the greatest word ever to exit John McCain’s mouth).
That spontaneous, “immediate” awakening of 100,000 people also happened after Ron Paul slogged away for decades with essentially the same message. Presumably, something besides just Ron Paul helped prepare people to hear that truthful, “original” message, unless you think it was solely due to his relentless, Sysyphean efforts that finally one, fine day just happened spontaneously to blast those 100K folks to another concept of reality. I rather suspect it was a constellation of different people’s efforts, radically different tactics that have begun to converge because humanity’s starting to sense a biological imperative — that we will cease to exist if transhumanism, nuclear insanity, police state control of food, water and DNA, and the nonstop wars continue. The phenomenon of Ron Paul’s sudden audience happened after many years and many people’s efforts–most of them unseen and seemingly unrelated, but all working towards a similar enough vision of freedom, peace and personal responsibility.
…as we can continue to do now… 🙂
Laura – excellent insights. I think people need to experience a certain level of pain until they are motivated to think for themselves, and to think differently. (I know that was true in my own case. I used to think of Ron Paul as a ‘whack job’ in the past. Not now.) Some people seem to be into cult like, childish hero worship. People like that were devastated when RP lost the election and think they need to vote in the ‘right politicians’ in order to ‘regain’ their freedom.
Reblogged this on I Au Matu and commented:
ABSENT LIMITS!
It’s called “working from Principle instead of Expediency.”
…Of course, it is open to question whether any significant percentage of people understand ANY concept of “principles” nowadays…
“What one man can do, so can another”
Should we label GMO demons before killing them or go right for the throat?
Polarities invite taking one side against the other, fence sitting in the middle, or flip flopping between the two extremes. I suggest that none of these three solutions generate adaptive sustainable synergy, although they may be seductively effective at winning or avoiding battles over the short term.
The alternative strategy of merging dualities by collapsing intelligent distinctions into an undifferentiated mass (Jon’s “goo”) as in the Eastern Advaita Vedanta tradition (“its all one”) also fails by killing diversity, individuality, freedom, creativity, and thus adaptability. One version of this error is to claim that because a group of different things or beings are linked, connected, related, or in communion, they are therefore “one.”
A thriving ecosystem is definitely not “merged goo” except to unconscious observers unable to discern variation (among species, personality types, etc.). What then of Jon’s blog and its community of commenters as a thriving ecosystem? Is there a fifth alternative for relating to diversity that might be relevant to the rich creative tension that is evolving among those participating in recent blog posts? (Label GMO, Kill GMO, Fence Sit, Deny Problem)
Taoist, Buddhist, and Pythagorean (ancient Greek) philosophies all work towards a frame of reference which includes the whole range or spectrum of possibilities between any two extremes. This view invites holding within ourselves or “standing as” the entire range of possibilities regarding a spectrum of ideas rather than taking and defending a single position (extremes or middle) or denying distinction altogether.
The challenge is that this broad upholding (through under-standing) of apparent opposites and she space between them is uncomfortable (among current humans) and takes a great deal of skill and effort, while clinging to simplistic extremes or denying the issue is easy.
This idea of the “Tao” or “Great Way” dancing between the dualities of yin and yang is also called the “golden mean” or the “middle way,” but this latter term misleads because the “mean” doesn’t stand in the middle. The “mean-way” instead steers within the whole range of possible responses according to each situation and context. This invites being skillful, useful, and appropriate rather than being right or winning at physical, mental or social (political) warfare.
This suggests no “one way it is” and no single truth, but rather a complex system of eco-niches as clusters of good ideas that at different moments – or even at the same moment, have their contribution to make to the unfolding whole. The ancient matriarchal symbol of the snake and its sinuous (sine wave) oscillating path points to this always moving sense of balance, much as we experience when riding a bicycle or skiing down a mountain side.
Ancient cultures held this always moving sense of balance as most sacred and represented it in human form as the goddesses Themis (Greece) and Ma’at (Egypt). Who learned that in school, and why not? A modern brain scientist might claim this as a core function of the cerebellum. In any case, nothing and no one works for long without this balance in motion, thus the state of our modern world.
The spectrum of duality regarding choice of labeling GMOs or outlawing them poses an “either-or” alternative or zero sum game (one wins and the other loses), which is the frame of military war games and economic game theory that seeks absolute control and stasis with the current rulers on top. It asks the misleading question, “which way is the right one”?
An alternative synergic (work together) frame of including the whole spectrum (both-and) moves us out of this conflict based struggle into an ecosystem view which asks how different species, species of ideas, and individuals can live and let live or even cooperate through mutual exchange among respected, honored, and protected differences (aka freedom).
How then might those who wish to make small patient steps toward labeling, or first labeling and then eliminating GMOs, find a way to work in cooperation with the revolutionaries who wish to go directly to the root of the problem and cut off the demon’s head? First we must ask, how is it that these two approaches came to seem threatening to each other in the first place and what caused that? [Next Post]
Funny, I awoke yesterday morning with an article about healthy ecosystems as they relate to the GMO debate — fully formed article, but I haven’t had a chance to let it spill out onto the keyboard. Cheers!
More often than not, and for better or worse, effective advertising is achieved by triggering a call to action by way of a manufactured, emotional response.
Whether it’s selling widgets or ideas, this, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. It all depends, of course, on motive.
There is a difference between distilling an idea down to it’s essence, and dumbing it down to it’s lowest common denominator. Although the ad industry would like you to think they are doing the former, 99% of the time they only succeed in accomplishing the latter. I know this because I have eyes to see and a brain to process it. But I have also sat in marketing strategy meetings that started out with the greatest of ideas and ambitions. We were going to educate and enlighten our customer base, expand our demographic, turn people on to our way of doing and seeing–and they would be better off for it! By the end of the session, however, we had taken that great idea, watered it down and half baked it into a mish mash of nothing. Our big advertising campaign that said everything and said nothing.
I have learned one thing. You can’t always be earth shattering in your ideas and innovation. You can, however, always be CLEAR. This brings us back to content. Content, as they say, is king. The idea of achieving anything by the act of ‘dumbing down’ is, at best, a short term tactic. Human beings may simply exist in their day-to-day life, but they will always crave something of substance to fuel hope for the future. This has to be more than simple minded platitudes and swell sounding slogans (Hope and Change anyone?).
Clarity of righteous thought and action– and the WILL to see it through might save us–but Jon, I can’t help but hear the clock ticking.
IMHO you can present great ideas, but you have to break it down into digestible pieces if you want to impact people. – – – One example of this is the drastic shift in public opinion away from the wars. The arguments can be broken down into “Look how much the wars are costing.” “Look how many lives have been lost.” “What have they achieved ?” “Who made money off them (no bid contracts, etc) ?” “What are we doing over there (US troops guarding poppy fields) ?” “Who are the innocents that have been a victim of this (bombed men, woman, children) ? What lies got us to go along with this (no weapons of mass destruction) ?
Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) divides science into two types of work, that of “normal science” and that of “revolutionary science.” The former points to the research, testing and retesting of tiny parts of hypotheses and theories that most of the hundreds of thousands of scientists do in their labs and libraries every day. The discipline of science couldn’t move forward without this painstaking work which rarely sees the woods for the trees.
The latter “revolutionary science” is what the very rare scientist such as Einstein, Newton, Galileo, or Copernicus does, namely to upend the old world view altogether and replace it with an entirely new paradigm. They go to the deep root of the problem “where the original corruption (mistake) took place.” I am not in their class, but this is the kind of science I love, and also why I appreciate Jon’s undaunted iconoclastic explorations of what is unseen.
As you can imagine, these two types of scientists (and humans in general) don’t typically get along well. Slow, safe, patient, and sure following of the existing consensus rules is not seen as inspired or revolutionary. The conservative normal science world view almost inherently threatens the revolutionary world view that would upend it, and vice versa.
In general, those who have the personality type of a revolutionary are not that patient with the endless little steps required to test and retest calculations and measurements in the laboratory. They aren’t fond of gathering hundred page lists of bibliographic references. They are driven to break out of the existing system which seems limiting, binding, and like a mental prison to their way of experiencing the world. They imagine and want to create something new.
This brings us to the metaphorical genius of the term “matrix,” which means “womb” in Latin. The fetus is happy to remain in the womb gestating for nine months, but when that time is up and the space of the matrix is binding and tight beyond bearing, the birth process inevitably begins. Birth is a profound paradigm shift and world shaking revolution to those involved.
I like to use this beautiful metaphor to view the diversity of human beings as living out their lifetime of learning at some point along this time line of nine months gestation, say within the period of a particular day. Those that pursue the works, crafts, and arts of “normal life” live within some few days along the developmental track of 8.99 months. They may kick the walls, but they definitely don’t “want out.” There are others who live within the last day of this time line and who are impatient for birth into the next paradigm or level of experience. They want out of the matrix or womb in a very intense way.
Imagine a telepathic conversation between a developing fetus at seven months and one who is in the middle of the birth process. Their sensations, perceptions, values, goals, ideals, and efforts would be totally different and if they imagined themselves within the same womb (matrix) they would be deeply at odds. What to one is sacred, to the other literally means death. “To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose…”
I trust you get my drift without my belaboring it. Human beings on Earth all find themselves within the same outer life-matrix or soul-womb, but at very different points along their developmental process of gestation. If they all insist on one single consensus experience and way of being; conflict, war, and needless suffering are insured.
This suggests the need to frame our society as “soul-matrix” in a different way and as a different organ of development and birth from that of a human womb which requires everyone inside to go the same way at the same time. Our souls do not all “come to term” at the same moment or even in the same life time, and this requires a revolutionary paradigm shift of how we frame our shared social matrix.
First we must recognize that one day in the developmental arc is not better or higher or more right than any other as they all must be traveled by each being. Even so, while some are busy gestating, others are in the life and death struggle to be born out of their matrix. If our current social matrix is shared in common and in consensus as “one womb,” how can this work?
How does one soul get born into a new paradigm without threatening or harming the ones who are still gestating and aren’t ready to even contemplate the unknown adventure into the void of birth? How does the one who is still gestating do this without holding back and restricting to the point of death the one who has expanded to the point of needing to get born?
Obviously our new paradigm cultural womb needs to have boundaries, membranes, or different rooms so that different kinds and levels of development and evolution can all happen at the same time without interfering with or harming each other. This mutual protection is the benevolent purpose of levels of discipline, hidden teachings, esoteric mysteries, and open secrets.
I realize this metaphor is simplistic, and many of us live life in a larger span across this spectrum of nine months, or we move forward and back many times through the whole range in one lifetime, but the point is that externally and socially at least, we are challenged to share a common matrix, but one with many different rooms, houses, “mansions,” or eco-niches (eco from Greek oikos meaning household).
How then can Jon inspire and galvanize revolution while Mitch and Laura engage the long step by step slogging in the trenches process of gestating different social groups to move towards their future birth? How can one stand in the midst of the life and death emergency of birth as revolution, while the other gestates with calm, sure, unhurried determination? How can these two endeavors inspire each other rather than negate and threaten each other?
I think we must either exist in different “rooms” and stay out of each other’s way, or we must personally expand to encompass the entire territory of gestation and birth all at the same time. In ancient terms, we must become the “Great Mother” to ourselves This is not easy for current humanity. On one day Jon writes fantastic mind bending science fiction, while on the next he jumps at the throats of some group of parasitic slave drivers who torture our physical lives.
This back and forth of apparent incompatibles disorients most humans with its snaking sine wave, or rotating spiral (spiritual, breath like) art of the Tao and the Golden Mean. This is the inclusive “both-and” balance of the scales of Ma’at and Themis which mythic minds once used to guide the birth of civilization.
This art of mental and emotional aerobatics, or psy-nautical wave surfing flow upon an ever shifting balance never went away, but humans fell asleep to its precious gifts. This means they can always reawaken, whether their gestating sleep requires a thousand lifetimes of tiny painful steps or they suddenly burst forth to freedom from their matrix womb with a great cry of joy.
Sight of the original problem was lost under Constantine when the church fathers created a unified Christianism that rejected membership in the family of gods, although the name of the god who fathered the figure of Jesus, Jehovah or Yahweh, was explicitly cognate with the father god Jove. This organization which expropriated the temples and hierarchy of other cults, most notably the Mithra cult, served as the template for all political totalitarianism, acting as a gatekeeper for the Roman court in both the West and the East for both the Roman and Byzantine Empires. The order survived the government which sponsored it, baiting converts with unselfish virtues, then locking them into whatever local and current political order curried their favor, regardless of whether such regimes exemplified or brought about those values. Later political totalitarian orders such as the Jacobins, the Fascists, the Nazis, and the Bolsheviks, were simply trying to duplicate Constantine’s achievement by controlling all institutions and sources of information to rule through the hearts and minds of every individual, exterminating all opposition by leaving it no opportunity for respite. No kind of “final solution” can be envisioned because one has already been supplied in the background, enduring for over 1700 years by claiming to hold a monopoly over love, mercy, charity, and benevolence while gathering support against, or even working to suppress movements beyond its control which might be attempting to realize such ideals outside of the boundaries of their faith. The Christian faith, in all its manifestations, is an absolute betrayal of all it professes to achieve.
No, no, no.
It’s not that people lack an imagination, or fear non existent alternatives, they fear doing the work.
People know what is going on (we’re born with intuition and a moral compass), but most are lazy.
Playing ignorant is blissful…
The populace is aware of choices. For example – walking, biking or driving to work, but since the job pays for the expensive alternative, (never mind it is a huge expense) life is easier with the automobile, as well as, (fill in the blank). How about a choice to work for an evil corporation with a high salary or a low paying job that is considerate of people, as well as the one natural law, “do no harm”.
A structure by and for the people would be an entity (not calling it a government because that is an evil “over men” structure) that coined its own money and provided all infrastructure services, like roads etc, not food, health care, education etc. People would through their own labor be able to afford a healthy life without taxes. Taxes are only a means to control. See definition – tax = penalty
If people have not figured it out by now – the democratic structure is communal, communism/socialism, an entity at the top takes (via taxes) from the collective and provides food etc for the ones that are not laboring for their own survival. Presently, less people would naturally exist by the laws of natural if survival was up to the individual. The animal that does not search for food and shelter dies…
People have imagined the individuals receiving (goober stolen) funds for doing nothing (fill in the blank) instead working for their supper, doing anything the societal infrastructure needed – Numerous problems solved. The present gooberment structure does not work this way because then people would be shown to have value, instead of the present state, controlled chattle… The money system need not be backed by precious metals the elite control, rather value through humanity laboring = toil = to be.
Shut off entertainment of all kinds and start “being”, show the world your value.
Well, I disagree about the importance of imagination/creativity in these matters. Actually, Jon open my eyes regarding how crucial this is.
Imagine someone is taking a vacation up in the mountains and is staying in an isolated cabin cut off from civilization. Someone comes to the door and warns that a mad man will be at the cabin in 5 minutes with the intent to murder everyone there. How would the vacationer respond to this potential threat ? If the vacationer did nothing, would it be because he was just lazy ? “Thanks for the info, but I’d rather take a nap on the couch right now.”
If the vacationer did nothing it would likely be because he doesn’t imagine that the threat is real or doesn’t think he could do anything to overcome it. (Or his mind is in some way impaired.)
A lot of people think the government and other so-called authorities are ‘good’ – a substitute Mommy that takes care of them that they can not imagine would seek to harm them. Many people have been so beaten down through various methods of propaganda (from public schools to t.v., etc) that they have few original thoughts at all They can’t imagine problem solutions outside of the agenda that is pushed on them.
Absolutely correct on how people have been beaten down through propaganda… & I would add that some see the situation as so huge that they feel powerless to do anything about it.
Most people have been conditioned. Some people can resist some of this conditioning, but it is done on so many levels, that almost everyone has been brainwashed to some extent.