Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
12-27-2017, 11:28 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-27-2017, 11:29 AM by Steppingfeet.)
#1
John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
PART ONE





PART TWO



Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 8 users Like Steppingfeet's post:
Bring4th_Jade, Louisabell, Nía, Nicholas, Quan, rva_jeremy, Sprout, xise
12-27-2017, 02:17 PM,
#2
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Thank you Steppingfeet for posting this. Jim is very eloquent and a pleasure to listen to. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Diana's post:
Nía, Steppingfeet
02-03-2018, 08:46 PM,
#3
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
I watched the first part of the interview, and while it was generally nice, i noticed a major incorrect interpretation on a rather sensitive topic - while it looks minor, its actually very important especially for polarization of adepts and clarity of their perception:

Upon a question about which societies were the ones aiding/spearheading a transition to 4th density, Jim didnt give certain names but said something like "societies which value individualism" being a pointer to such societies helping a positive 4d transition.

....

Except...

That would pretty much be USA, coupled by a particular few of its allies (readConfusedatellites)... And the record of US in the past 60 years around the world has not been positive at all. Starting from the Iraq affair in which ~1 million died based upon a lie in an oil and military contracts grab to Kissinger having defined the policy of US in Vietnam as "anything that flies on anything that moves" (bombing anything live, people, children, goats) and dropping Agent Orange, a chemical specifically made to eradicate plantation in order to make sure nothing grew in Vietnamese soil to 'make it an example' for any country which would dare to follow an 'independent development path' (domino theory), to setting up and keeping Operation Gladio across Europe to kill any intellectual, author, politician, activist which threatened US corporate interests....

The list is too long.

Internally, it didnt have anything on the positive side either - its not like Americans had been getting any benefits from the establishment that we call US - leaving aside the horrors of old times, lynchings, Civil Rights struggle and how Hippies were shot, how FBI went after civil rights leaders in order to 'persuade' them to commit suicide or outright kill them, life in US hadnt been positive at all for majority of the population, and its still not positive today.

https://mashable.com/2016/07/14/child-hunger-united-states/

https://www.quora.com/Have-any-American-citizens-ever-been-personally-denied-healthcare-in-the-USA

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/maria-fernandes_n_5732230.html

http://graphics.latimes.com/retirement-nomads/

This is not a positive picture. This is not even a neutral 3d picture.

This is, a picture under a negative social hierarchy as Ra explains a negative social construct. And its not misplaced:

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

..........

On the spiritual side of matters, a lot of factors also point to such an interpretation being incorrect. Ra always refrained from directly naming names, however there have been a lot of indirect pointers to identify positive and negative, and with certainty too - first the social pointers:

First is a quote to which i didnt pay due attention in around ~20 years, and when i did, i made a gross mistake of interpreting it in terms of time period:

Ra talks about the situation during the cold war circa 1980~, future potential of war, and says this:

https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=65#7

Quote:65.7 Questioner: How would conventional warfare offer the opportunities for seeking and service?
Ra: I am Ra. The possibility/probabilities exist for situations in which great portions of your continent and the globe in general might be involved in the type of warfare which you might liken to guerrilla warfare. The ideal of freedom from the so-called invading force of either the controlled fascism or the equally controlled social common ownership of all things would stimulate great quantities of contemplation upon the great polarization implicit in the contrast between freedom and control. In this scenario which is being considered at this time/space nexus the idea of obliterating valuable sites and personnel would not be considered an useful one. Other weapons would be used which do not destroy as your nuclear arms would. In this ongoing struggle the light of freedom would burn within the mind/body/spirit complexes capable of such polarization. Lacking the opportunity for overt expression of the love of freedom, the seeking for inner knowledge would take root aided by those of the Brothers and Sisters of Sorrow which remember their calling upon this sphere.

The two major parties to this affair being the western pact led by US, and Warsaw pact led by USSR, makes forces of controlled fascism the Western pact, and equally controlled social common ownership of all things, the Warsaw pact.

Forces of freedom, as described, could easily be evaluated to be people of smaller countries - especially because guerrilla warfare is mentioned.

You are now possibly aware that Ra had had called the faction under the leadership of US as the forces of controlled fascism.

Which is of course accurate, since the merging of state and corporate power has been defined as fascism by Mussolini, and this had been de facto modus operandi of US establishment.

The prediction happened accurately as Ra analyzed too - with various local situations ending up in Guerrilla conflicts due to invasions by either party, but mostly US. As the famous case of Nicaragua CIA guerilla case and many other 'freedom fighter training programs' which are now public domain knowledge due to being declassified, indicates.

........

Another important indicator is a prediction Ra made about the potential for positive/negative social complexes in near future.

Ra noted that in the short run, the negative society complexes would increase, but in the long run things would turn positive.

What happened historically had been Warsaw pact falling down, and many countries switching to democracy (read: capitalism) and adapting neoliberal free markets - which lead to many social safety nets, social programs being abolished, people being made overworked, with wages falling while productivity increased.

This created the horrible picture that is in US today, with people dying in between 4 shifts, 40 million people in working families facing hunger, 70 year old retirees having to become greeters in Walmart to be able to afford food, while a very tiny minority of people live in extravagant luxury, without any shame.

.........

At this point, we enter a stage of this analysis which is more deeper in terms of spiritual principles:

In the material, a negative setup is defined as a minority elite exploiting a gullible (and negatively inclined) majority. Moreover, taking credit for things not done is given as an example of how crusaders operate - the underlings do something, and the success is then claimed by the leader.

This is pretty much the exact format corporate world in US and much of the west operates in. Moreover, the phenomenon of 'job creators' being praised and respected and being shown as role models while not doing any work for the billions of dollars of wealth they control, is something exactly in that direction. The control is not only control of funds, of course - 4 billion wealth cannot be held in cash - it exists in the manner of stocks, which translates to control of massive organizations.

To make an example, Walton family own and control an organization which has a wealth bigger than 150 countries of the world, and control the lives of 3 million employees, while also practically dominating and controlling retail sector in US. Private tyranny, it is called in political science. And its a negative setup.

Another negative example given, was how the wanderers who turned negative in Venus used the method of 'working entities until death' as a means to polarize negatively.

The increasing workload with decreasing pay in corporate life in the West, is in this exact direction. Those who perpetuate it make no secret of their intent either - they declare that you just have to work hard more, for less.

Moreover, the philosophy of individualism gets used as a launch pad to justify this situation. Everyone is an individual, therefore more responsible with himself/herself, individual responsibility is the key, and any social construct, obligation, collective tenets are shunned as limiting the individual.

........

Which brings us to the deepest part of the analysis:

Individualism cannot be a trait of positive path, leave aside the path that exists beyond early 6d, due to obvious spiritual principles and facts that are repeated in not only Ra material, but in many other spiritualist or esoteric philosopy:

Which 'individual' are you talking about in a situation in which everyone not only shares everything physical, but also their energies, and even beyond that, their memories?

Thats what a social memory complex is. Especially in the positive path.

Beyond that, Ra as a 6 d entity consisting of 60 million entities, not only shares their entire existence, but also is going towards merging everyone into one entity, and they call themselves 'I', 'Ra'.

At which part of this increasingly synchronized and unified existence, is the 'individual' going to exist, and there would be any 'individualism'?

The only individual existence in such a situation would be the existence of the individual entity as a node of the combined singularized entity. The entity would have infinite nuances inside itself which would pertain to different individuals, but to outside observer it would appear as a single entity.

To be an individual, especially in the sense it is perceived and praised in cultures like US, would require a decent degree of separation from other selves. Separation is the basis of negative polarity. To be individual, separation is necessary.

And one of the major hurdles of the adept seeking intelligent infinity is being able to let go of that individuality, and manifesting as an individual node of infinite intelligence.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes unity100's post:
rva_jeremy
02-04-2018, 04:28 PM,
#4
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Unity100, I think you make an excellent case for seeing a certain flavor of individualism as incompatible with the positive path. I think both of us would describe it as the capitalist-oriented individualism, and that any economic system has an interest in the value system that reproduces certain kinds of participants.

But setting aside the qualities it seeks to maximize in those participants, nobody would deny that those participants are individual human beings. Even collectivist ideologies understand that the lowest common denominator of the polity is the individual. While we can reject Thatcher's remark that "there is no such thing as society", that doesn't mean that the individual is therefore impossible or even undesirable.

It appears to be a core feature of third density that we only have reliable, perceptible agency as individuals. Whatever the ultimate truth of the situation is, from our current vantage point we seem to only be able to polarize through choices and thinking that we individually perform. So regardless of all the other imperceptible and subtle stimuli we encounter that undoubtedly shakes us, the fact that choices only manifest when we make a singular decision as a unit is inescapable.

That feature of our reality is going to make it seem like individuals constitute the smallest unit of consciousness possible, and therefore the lowest common denominator of any organizing rubric. It's inevitable that this feature of our reality would be distorted and essentialized, which is the common bug in all ideology. However, my understanding is that the magic of fourth density happens, not in spite of individuals and their choice, but because of it.

In my limited view, fourth density is not simply a hive mind. It is a collective premised on complete trust, honesty and transparency amongst all participants. This is a qualitative rule change from the third density, yellow ray game. It removes the biggest barrier for individuals to stifle their own energy, and therefore unlocks the individual's latent potential. The unblocked individuals lead to unhampered communication, which creates the basis for a genuine consensus that excludes none.

I don't see the green ray social memory complex as merely subsuming individuals; I see the individual's work on themselves as the very thing that makes social memory possible. In that sense, I consider myself an individualist.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2018, 06:53 PM,
#5
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
I see an important ingredient in a positively-orientated run state is volunteerism. You should be able to choose to what extent you participate, or if you want to participate at all.

From my knowledge the only system that allows this is a decentralised Libertarian society. Therefore I too consider myself an individualist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Louisabell's post:
rva_jeremy
02-04-2018, 09:40 PM,
#6
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-04-2018, 04:28 PM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  Unity100, I think you make an excellent case for seeing a certain flavor of individualism as incompatible with the positive path. I think both of us would describe it as the capitalist-oriented individualism, and that any economic system has an interest in the value system that reproduces certain kinds of participants.

But setting aside the qualities it seeks to maximize in those participants, nobody would deny that those participants are individual human beings

Being a third density entity, ie an individual, has nothing to do with individualism.

Except, of course, being the enabler of individualism, its progression to separation and selfishness and its eventual end, negative path.

Quote: Even collectivist ideologies understand that the lowest common denominator of the polity is the individual. While we can reject Thatcher's remark that "there is no such thing as society", that doesn't mean that the individual is therefore impossible or even undesirable.[quote]

Iterating again by using this fortunate example: a society is made up individuals, who create the entity that is society. But individualism is fundamentally different than individual. Individualism would separate the entity from the society, and lead to fragmentation, alienation and eventual social results like in US.

[quote]That feature of our reality is going to make it seem like individuals constitute the smallest unit of consciousness possible, and therefore the lowest common denominator of any organizing rubric. It's inevitable that this feature of our reality would be distorted and essentialized, which is the common bug in all ideology. However, my understanding is that the magic of fourth density happens, not in spite of individuals and their choice, but because of it.

At this point a mind-broadening example would come up:

The human as we call it, you, me and anyone reading this, are not actually individuals, but all of them are collectives of cooperating bacteria, as it was recently demonstrated in the field of Biology.

Yet a person would call himself/herself an individual, without paying any heed to 37 trillion cells that constitute the collective that s/he is...

Similarly:

Quote:In my limited view, fourth density is not simply a hive mind. It is a collective premised on complete trust, honesty and transparency amongst all participants. This is a qualitative rule change from the third density, yellow ray game. It removes the biggest barrier for individuals to stifle their own energy, and therefore unlocks the individual's latent potential. The unblocked individuals lead to unhampered communication, which creates the basis for a genuine consensus that excludes none.

At the start, it definitely is not a hive mind and it is a social group as you define.

However, when the social memory complex comes to being, and the walk towards higher frequencies start, the entities do not only become hive-like within their smc, but also the smc gets increasingly connected and integrated to the spiritual environment it is connected to - not unlike Quo collective, comprising of ~3 different such hives.

Quote:I don't see the green ray social memory complex as merely subsuming individuals; I see the individual's work on themselves as the very thing that makes social memory possible. In that sense, I consider myself an individualist.

At this point, before looking into such a concept, it may be important to note the bold proposition is a common fear, and it is also one which hampers many adepts on their way.

Spiritual progress at the highest levels is increasingly tied to being able to let go of self. Being tied to the concept of individual becomes a weight that prevents the adept from rising upwards, judging from not only Ra material, but also major esoteric teachings and religions of this very 3rd density we inhabit...

That said, the nature and presence of an entity never gets lost. As nothing ever gets lost, ever, in existence. However, regarding concepts we are discussing, like the individual as it is defined in this period in various societal complexes, will need to be lost as entities ascend through vibratory spectrum.

To put into context: Ra says that the entity which we call Jesus of Nazareth did not even have a name before he incarnated into this planet.

(02-04-2018, 06:53 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  I see an important ingredient in a positively-orientated run state is volunteerism. You should be able to choose to what extent you participate, or if you want to participate at all.

From my knowledge the only system that allows this is a decentralised Libertarian society. Therefore I too consider myself an individualist.

Private property and the attachment to it is one of the most base attachments which has to be lost on a spiritual journey, according to even the most common of religions of philosophies, from christianity to buddhism.

Beyond that, proposition of a world in which entities can hold vast properties as personal fiefs, and decide what happens on that property as a private tyrant, is definitely out of spectrum for a positive society.

In a society comprised of entities which had voluntarily let go of such attachments and voluntarily put serving each other before themselves, an entity which is aggregating private property for his/her personal use and utilizing for his/her own individual persona, would be at odds with the society which s/he inhabits.

If that separation was taken sufficiently further, then the entity could no longer be positive enough to stay in a positive environment, socially.

........

Spiritually the mechanics are much more simple and unforgiving: Any entity which has such separating, vibration-lowering distortions and attachments would instantly fall in vibratory spectrum the moment s/he adopts that kind of mindset.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes unity100's post:
rva_jeremy
02-04-2018, 11:14 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-04-2018, 11:16 PM by Louisabell.)
#7
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-04-2018, 09:40 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
(02-04-2018, 06:53 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  I see an important ingredient in a positively-orientated run state is volunteerism. You should be able to choose to what extent you participate, or if you want to participate at all.

From my knowledge the only system that allows this is a decentralised Libertarian society. Therefore I too consider myself an individualist.

Private property and the attachment to it is one of the most base attachments which has to be lost on a spiritual journey, according to even the most common of religions of philosophies, from christianity to buddhism.

Beyond that, proposition of a world in which entities can hold vast properties as personal fiefs, and decide what happens on that property as a private tyrant, is definitely out of spectrum for a positive society.

In a society comprised of entities which had voluntarily let go of such attachments and voluntarily put serving each other before themselves, an entity which is aggregating private property for his/her personal use and utilizing for his/her own individual persona, would be at odds with the society which s/he inhabits.

If that separation was taken sufficiently further, then the entity could no longer be positive enough to stay in a positive environment, socially.

........

Spiritually the mechanics are much more simple and unforgiving: Any entity which has such separating, vibration-lowering distortions and attachments would instantly fall in vibratory spectrum the moment s/he adopts that kind of mindset.

We all need private property. I have a meditation room, which I expect won't be turned into a hangout for rowdy teenagers anytime soon. I worked for it, I offered productive services to other people, so that I could have my own slice of heaven on Earth to enjoy as I wish.

If you really believe that in a Libertarian society, the only thing that will spring up is fiefdoms and tyrants, then you don't really have much hope for humanity at all, and I don't think any type of centralised government would thrive.

Apart from common law (no stealing, no fraud, no harm) that is conducted with a court of your peers, I just don't think I have the right to tell people what to do at gunpoint, which is essentially what happens if you don't go along with what the state want of you (including the funding and conscription of wars).

Becoming a Libertarian helped me respect the autonomy of other people, judge my vibration all you want.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Louisabell's post:
rva_jeremy
02-05-2018, 10:34 AM,
#8
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-04-2018, 11:14 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  We all need private property. I have a meditation room, which I expect won't be turned into a hangout for rowdy teenagers anytime soon. I worked for it, I offered productive services to other people, so that I could have my own slice of heaven on Earth to enjoy as I wish.

In a positive society one wouldnt need to have his or her own room to meditate in. Leaving aside having to 'work hard' for it. If someone works hard in a positive society, then there is something considerably wrong there.

Quote:If you really believe that in a Libertarian society, the only thing that will spring up is fiefdoms and tyrants, then you don't really have much hope for humanity at all, and I don't think any type of centralised government would thrive.

In the environment you call libertarian, eventually a few big property holders do establish themselves as top of the property order and call the shots. This is not a matter of thinking or believing, its what has happened in every such environment throughout history - from early farming communities after agricultural revolution, to American wild west, to Ayn Rand's libertarian paradise in Chile, and even Internet itself.

There being no limit on private property eventually causes concentration of wealth, and eventually power in the hands of the few which stop at nothing to acquire them. You and your 3000-5000 other fellows may be modest entities which do not harbor excessive greed, but a few dozen extremely greedy individuals is enough to concentrate power - just like in any of the examples given above.

Quote:Apart from common law (no stealing, no fraud, no harm) that is conducted with a court of your peers, I just don't think I have the right to tell people what to do at gunpoint, which is essentially what happens if you don't go along with what the state want of you (including the funding and conscription of wars).

What do you think would happen in a situation in which a selfish entity hoards resources in a positive society. The positive entities would just starve, let their children die, out of respect for the 'property rights' of the person hoarding massive farmland, and still accept that person as a member of their society...
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes unity100's post:
rva_jeremy
02-05-2018, 11:03 AM,
#9
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Thanks for your reply, Unity100.

(02-04-2018, 09:40 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
(02-04-2018, 04:28 PM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  Unity100, I think you make an excellent case for seeing a certain flavor of individualism as incompatible with the positive path. I think both of us would describe it as the capitalist-oriented individualism, and that any economic system has an interest in the value system that reproduces certain kinds of participants.

But setting aside the qualities it seeks to maximize in those participants, nobody would deny that those participants are individual human beings

Being a third density entity, ie an individual, has nothing to do with individualism.

Except, of course, being the enabler of individualism, its progression to separation and selfishness and its eventual end, negative path.

That seems so extreme, Unity100. How could the character of third density not have a lot to do with political individualism?  

It seems to me that one of the major features of third density is the achievement of individuality coming out of second density. Self-awareness and the activated spirit complex are part and parcel of an individualized understanding of the self and, eventually, the otherself. That hardly strikes me as negative: it makes a choice of polarity possible in the first place. Third density, to the extent it is fixated on a choice, is inherently about individualism -- more specifically, how the individual is placed within the social matrix. I understand that the priority of the individual has been converted into a political ideology that you find distasteful, and I share your opinion of its excesses, but it seems to me that political individualism is more distortion than pure negativity. Just my opinion.

Furthermore, I'm more interested in what Jim meant by individualism, and I think there are positive traits to a politically individualist society that you're glossing over.  Freedom of individual conscience, for example, seems critical to making an authentic choice of polarity, and that's typically associated with individualist societies.  Freedom of speech is what allows for robust possible catalyst between individuals.  All of these freedoms, as limited as they are, are predicated on an understanding of the individual as the lowest common denominator of society, and therefore the unit at which to monitor the functionality of society.

In fact, from a political point of view, I'd argue that the corporations that wield so much power today represent at best a confused understanding of the kind of right-wing, private property individualism I see you critiquing.  These corporations are distorted collectives, sure (so are anarcho-syndicalist communes; everything is distorted), but they're also not quite the entrepreneurial individualist engines that Fox News likes to make them out to be -- in fact, the big ones look a lot more like little bureaucratic governments than actual free wheeling market instruments.  

So it just goes to show that none of these ideologies are that consistent, and -- this is my main point here -- it's not so much about individualism or collectivism but the type of individualism or collectivism we're talking about.

(02-04-2018, 09:40 PM)unity100 Wrote:  Iterating again by using this fortunate example: a society is made up individuals, who create the entity that is society. But individualism is fundamentally different than individual. Individualism would separate the entity from the society, and lead to fragmentation, alienation and eventual social results like in US.

Yes, it has its excesses.  So does collectivism.  But I felt like Jim wasn't talking about individualism as the epitome of development, only a milestone on the path to development, in a way similar to Marx's dialectic of capitalism being a stepping stone to communism eventually.

Let me be clear: I think right wing individualism is not just morally empty but positively incoherent because it assumes that the character of the individual in, say, a western country is some sort of absolute given.  I don't believe that at all: our personalities are fashioned by society at least as much as we fashion them, and without society, individuals don't exist as we know them.  There's scholarship arguing that our modern conception of the individual is a capitalist construct arising from the decline of the feudal, more tribal identity. 

The separation between the individual and society that western, Lockean individualism postulates is a very particular kind that draws an arbitrary line.  Example: private property, which is a totally artificial construct that we all more or less individually honor, and which creates the "owner" as a role attributed to the individual that wouldn't otherwise exist. This is all to say that I'm not defending what you see as individualism; I want to paint a broader picture so that Jim's comments can be seen as having some sense to them! 

(02-04-2018, 09:40 PM)unity100 Wrote:  The human as we call it, you, me and anyone reading this, are not actually individuals, but all of them are collectives of cooperating bacteria, as it was recently demonstrated in the field of Biology.

Yet a person would call himself/herself an individual, without paying any heed to 37 trillion cells that constitute the collective that s/he is...

Yes. Calling oneself an individual is an ontological fiction. My only point is that it is a fiction upon which third density seems to pivot, the point in the hierarchy between the microcosm and the macrocosm that we all seem fixated upon in this illusion. We all seem to be on the same page in this society of seeing some priority to the separated personality self.

I'm simply suggesting this isn't an error; rather, it's a stage of evolution. It's no more "bad" than being savage pack hunters in second density was "bad". (For what it's worth I explored this topic in depth in my essay about the political implications of the Law of One.) The impulse to collectivism, in fact, is really calling upon the same energy as the impulse to radical individualism, because these two poles seem to motivate us along our path to social memory.

(02-04-2018, 09:40 PM)unity100 Wrote:  
Quote:In my limited view, fourth density is not simply a hive mind.  It is a collective premised on complete trust, honesty and transparency amongst all participants.  This is a qualitative rule change from the third density, yellow ray game.  It removes the biggest barrier for individuals to stifle their own energy, and therefore unlocks the individual's latent potential.  The unblocked individuals lead to unhampered communication, which creates the basis for a genuine consensus that excludes none.  

At the start, it definitely is not a hive mind and it is a social group as you define.

However, when the social memory complex comes to being, and the walk towards higher frequencies start, the entities do not only become hive-like within their smc, but also the smc gets increasingly connected and integrated to the spiritual environment it is connected to - not unlike Quo collective, comprising of ~3 different such hives.

Well, a SMC does imply some of the conditions we'd associate with a hive mind; I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  I'm simply saying that it isn't only a hive mind.  It is a full integration between the individual and the collective premised by an unmediated connection to the "hive".  The pejorative connotation of "hive mind" is that the individual is subordinate to it.  I see the SMC as a full expression of the individual without the need for protection amongst individuals in the collective. What arises is a magnification, in a way, of the individual who no longer needs something like the yellow ray ego personality to explore the Creator. What the self is once it has released its resistance to full social transparency is so different than it is now that it's probably not even useful to speak in terms of "individualism" in the first place, yet 3d words and concepts are all Jim has at his disposal.

I don't say that to undermine in the least your conception, Unity100.  You and I don't disagree about anything but the relative desirability of this vague concept called "individualism". I think you and I are looking at the very same construct from different angles, and I'm just attempting to share an angle from which individualism isn't so threatening.

(02-04-2018, 09:40 PM)unity100 Wrote:  Spiritual progress at the highest levels is increasingly tied to being able to let go of self. Being tied to the concept of individual becomes a weight that prevents the adept from rising upwards, judging from not only Ra material, but also major esoteric teachings and religions of this very 3rd density we inhabit...

Agreed.  It's interesting to ponder what is meant by "letting go of self": does that mean the abnegation and discarding of the yellow-ray ego personality vehicle, or does it instead imply a more fluid relationship between the eternal self and this vehicle?  

(02-04-2018, 09:40 PM)unity100 Wrote:  That said, the nature and presence of an entity never gets lost. As nothing ever gets lost, ever, in existence. However, regarding concepts we are discussing, like the individual as it is defined in this period in various societal complexes, will need to be lost as entities ascend through vibratory spectrum.

To put into context: Ra says that the entity which we call Jesus of Nazareth did not even have a name before he incarnated into this planet.

Yup, I certainly agree with all this.  I call the ego personality the "yellow ray vehicle" precisely to emphasize that I don't think that's the real individual in the individual, but merely a proxy for third density activities. And I think that what you're concerned about is a philosophy that seeks to politically prioritize this ego personality vehicle as the individual in individualism. I share your concern: I simply don't think this is what Jim meant, and furthermore I don't think individualism has the pure negative connotation you imply.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 11:12 AM,
#10
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-04-2018, 06:53 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  I see an important ingredient in a positively-orientated run state is volunteerism. You should be able to choose to what extent you participate, or if you want to participate at all.

From my knowledge the only system that allows this is a decentralised Libertarian society. Therefore I too consider myself an individualist.

So full disclosure: I was a longtime libertarian (used to serve on the State Central Committee of the Virginia LP) who became more of a left libertarian and now is more of a libertarian socialist.  I still am extremely decentralist in my politics, but only because I think true unity only arises voluntarily, as you say.

I would only point out that lots of libertarian societies are possible, and that they don't have to predicated on absolutist conceptions of private property, for example.  After all, what is more centralized than our private property title system, which allows the state to decide based on its records who does and does not have title to property?  Authentic property is something that is created by free consensus of the actual people on the ground occupying it, in my opinion, and the state has always intervened to manipulate that consensus.  This is why Proudhon has those three paradoxical statements about property:

1. Property is liberty
2. Property is theft
3. Property is impossible

Louisabell, I'm happy to digress further if you'd like to discuss this stuff, but I don't want to derail the thread.  Suffice to say: there's lots of individualisms, lots of libertarianisms, and our job ought to be not to pick one so much as to explain what we mean by each.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 11:27 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-05-2018, 12:29 PM by rva_jeremy.)
#11
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-04-2018, 09:40 PM)unity100 Wrote:  Private property and the attachment to it is one of the most base attachments which has to be lost on a spiritual journey, according to even the most common of religions of philosophies, from christianity to buddhism.

Beyond that, proposition of a world in which entities can hold vast properties as personal fiefs, and decide what happens on that property as a private tyrant, is definitely out of spectrum for a positive society.

I agree 100% with this. I would only remark that there is some light between (A) the idea of personally releasing one's attachments and (B) organizing society according to that. I also think we need to come up with institutions that properly realize those values, Unity100, because the 20th century has certainly proven that a socialist ideology can (operative word: CAN) be predatory in its own way. I yearn for the decentralized, bottom-up governance of an actual union of soviets (worker councils).

The theme I'm starting to see in my writing is that we cannot map individual development directly to the evolution of political institutions. It's more complicated than that, and ideology seems to always try to oversimplify the actual terrain we cross to get to social memory. Ideology is too militant, too reductive, too us-vs.-them.

Louisabell Wrote:We all need private property. I have a meditation room, which I expect won't be turned into a hangout for rowdy teenagers anytime soon. I worked for it, I offered productive services to other people, so that I could have my own slice of heaven on Earth to enjoy as I wish.

Well, to be fair, Louisabell, when socialists critique private property there's a distinction always made. No socialist wants collective ownership of the shirt on your back, or even you house, necessarily. There's a distinction to be made between private property that is a means of production, such as a factory, a bus system, etc., and personal property, which is property the individual needs to properly constitute herself in society. Socialism is not about everybody owning everything; it is about how expropriating the means of production from the ruling class to be run by everybody makes these property questions and distinctions moot. They're made mood by the allocation of property not affecting whether or not a given person gets to eat or survive.

Louisabell Wrote:If you really believe that in a Libertarian society, the only thing that will spring up is fiefdoms and tyrants, then you don't really have much hope for humanity at all, and I don't think any type of centralised government would thrive.

I certainly agree with you there: as dialectical materialists, socialists often have a dim view of the human animal. Why would we even want to work towards a political vision of liberation if the units being liberated are so morally unfit? But then again, libertarians who are ok with poverty because it goes with their meritocratic ideology of the most productive deserving the most seem to have a bleak view of humans as well, as if production were the only human value that really mattered.

The problem with both ideologies is that they are so materialist, that they see maximizing the production of material goods as the whole point rather than merely a means to another end. The point of producing more stuff is so more stuff is available, to minimize the age-old scourge of scarcity so that we can do other less tedious, more enriching things, not to create jobs or stock value or whatever reductive metric the political system wants to evaluate it by.

With all that said, I'd come back to the point that private property, as you pointed out, is the right to exclude. It seems obvious that, were private property to become maximized, as many libertarians like Rothbard or Hoppe advocate, that you would have a much starker, feudal arrangement. Maybe that catalyst would be productive, but it does at the very least seem a little regressive, don't you think?

Louisabell Wrote:Apart from common law (no stealing, no fraud, no harm) that is conducted with a court of your peers, I just don't think I have the right to tell people what to do at gunpoint, which is essentially what happens if you don't go along with what the state want of you (including the funding and conscription of wars).

That caveat about stealing is crucial. Private property is enforced at gunpoint. Over and over again in our society, private property is elevated over basic respect for human life and dignity. Clearly something is out of whack!

Louisabell Wrote:Becoming a Libertarian helped me respect the autonomy of other people, judge my vibration all you want.

I feel the same way. I also think becoming a socialist and an anarchist helped me put a finer point on libertarianism's blind spots. And I think the economics so statically built into libertarianism helped me put a finer point on what I think are socialism's blind spots. I think both perspectives see mass humanity as a productive resource to be harnessed rather than ends in themselves, and that the solution is to devolve decision making so that decisions find themselves made closer to the people--the individuals, even--who are actually affected by them.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 03:13 PM,
#12
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-05-2018, 11:03 AM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  Being a third density entity, ie an individual, has nothing to do with individualism.

Except, of course, being the enabler of individualism, its progression to separation and selfishness and its eventual end, negative path.

That seems so extreme, Unity100. How could the character of third density not have a lot to do with political individualism?[/quote]

Simply because being a 3rd density entity which is aware of its own existence would make you an individually existing entity, aka an individual...

and putting that separation into a behavior pattern and even more, an ideology in the form of Individualism would make the entity a negatively inclined 3rd density entity due to the separation principle emphasized.

Quote:Third density, to the extent it is fixated on a choice, is inherently about individualism

That's incorrect. Third density is a choice of the entity's position as an individual entity toward other individual entities.

The entity either sees everything as one, contrary to the idea of individual, and puts others before himself - contrary to the idea of individualism - and polarizes positively,

or, it puts its own individual existence above all others and emphasizes its aims, needs and desires at the expense of others.

Quote:Self-awareness and the activated spirit complex are part and parcel of an individualized understanding of the self and, eventually, the otherself. That hardly strikes me as negative

You are still mixing individual-ness and individualism into the same concept.

Quote:Furthermore, I'm more interested in what Jim meant by individualism, and I think there are positive traits to a politically individualist society that you're glossing over.  Freedom of individual conscience, for example, seems critical to making an authentic choice of polarity, and that's typically associated with individualist societies.  Freedom of speech is what allows for robust possible catalyst between individuals.  All of these freedoms, as limited as they are, are predicated on an understanding of the individual as the lowest common denominator of society, and therefore the unit at which to monitor the functionality of society.

In such muddled waters, one could easily argue that there exists no realistic choice of individual choices for conscience and polarity, and even less, freedom of speech in individualist societies like US, because any deviation from the norm gets you castrated. In case of things like freedom of speech, the illusion of their existence is there because the speech of the person does not have any weight. Only when it becomes dangerous by reaching many, then the real face of the society shows its ugly head, like how Occupy protesters found out when FBI dropped everything including looking for missing children aside, to organize a nationwide crackdown on them.

If you would mean making choices and sticking to those choices at the cost of being ostracized from society, like how a person who would decide to be a hippie or a marxist while working in an investment bank would soon discover, that's not a freedom. Such freedom exists in any 'collectivist' society as it is called by the literature in anglo-american west - you can always end up being the 'weird spiritualist uncle' of your family in China, and even can entertain many different sets of beliefs and inclinations for example - and you wont lose your job or your social standing in contrast to the freedom one enjoys say, in US, when they go out of the accepted norm. This is a broad example, bu it illustrates the issue well.

Therefore the proposition that individualism brings such freedoms is actually demonstrably invalid.

Freedoms of such things - speech, belief, choice etc exist in reality only when you are not outcast by the society and do not face repercussions for what you think and what you do. If the society sub-divides itself into strongly segregated subsets of thoughts and is able to 'function' only by adhering to strictly defined behavior patterns and social constructs (conventions of work practice, political practice, political correctness and so on), then it means that what individualism provides is not such freedoms, but the freedom to separate and break into different sub-segments.

Quote:In fact, from a political point of view, I'd argue that the corporations that wield so much power today represent at best a confused understanding of the kind of right-wing, private property individualism I see you critiquing.  These corporations are distorted collectives, sure , but they're also not quite the entrepreneurial individualist engines that Fox News likes to make them out to be -- in fact, the big ones look a lot more like little bureaucratic governments than actual free wheeling market instruments.  

A corporation is never a collective unless the employees have an acceptable share and say in the corporation. When they do, it becomes a cooperative. In the realm of corporations you speak of, you wont find one single cooperative that is criticized as a corporation as mentioned.

A private corporation with a majority shareholder is just a private tyranny. A feudal domain, if you will. The only thing shackling the power of the private owner compared to the owner of an old feudal fief is rules and regulations enforced through publicly owned and run military, justice, police. If they were abolished and private armies and justice was allowed, it would be back to feudal system in a second.

Quote:(so are anarcho-syndicalist communes; everything is distorted)

Anarcho-syndicalist communes would be more close to the format you seem to be advocating.

Quote:So it just goes to show that none of these ideologies are that consistent, and -- this is my main point here -- it's not so much about individualism or collectivism but the type of individualism or collectivism we're talking about.

The first statement is incorrect. There is nothing inconsistent among those ideologies - individualism, anarcho-syndicalism included. They are all well defined and they act according to its mechanics.

Thinking that individualism would end up in something different than separation and empowering of those who would favor separation is what's inconsistent.

People in US seem to have this misperception, just like how they have misperceptions about various things - like Capitalism being equated to freedom - the former bankrupted shop owners working as greeters in Walmart which bankrupted their business are a good example of this misperception.

Quote:Let me be clear: I think right wing individualism is not just morally empty but positively incoherent because it assumes that the character of the individual in, say, a western country is some sort of absolute given.  I don't believe that at all: our personalities are fashioned by society at least as much as we fashion them, and without society, individuals don't exist as we know them.  There's scholarship arguing that our modern conception of the individual is a capitalist construct arising from the decline of the feudal, more tribal identity. 

The last statement summarizes the situation exactly as it is: Individualism is a result of capitalist system having to justify breaking old social contracts and perpetuating profit-motive at the cost of any moral or social concern.

Individualism as a concept started being put forth by the establishment in Anglo-American west circa 18th century, when rising Capitalism started to break the social contract which existed in feudal society. As bad as the concept of feudal society is, it was shackled by various conventions, and there existed a social network which protected the weak, elderly from being discarded.

First to go was the system of commons which enabled any poor or rural villager to survive by using common resources like rivers, fisheries, forests, next to go was this system of contracting a young person to take place to farm your farm in return for looking after you in your old age. New profit-making entrepreneurs had little interest in such a scheme that would reduce profits. Too old to work? Off you go to hell and get replaced by a young person who will work for less.

None of them could be justified by changing entire social contract - individualism is what was invented and replaced - you are an individual, you are responsible with yourself and your fortune or misfortune.

Quote:The separation between the individual and society that western, Lockean individualism postulates is a very particular kind that draws an arbitrary line.  Example: private property, which is a totally artificial construct that we all more or less individually honor, and which creates the "owner" as a role attributed to the individual that wouldn't otherwise exist. This is all to say that I'm not defending what you see as individualism; I want to paint a broader picture so that Jim's comments can be seen as having some sense to them! 

I understand your intent, however when a statement like 'countries which promote individualism' is made, it doesnt evaluate to anything else than what i talked about.

Quote:Yes. Calling oneself an individual is an ontological fiction. My only point is that it is a fiction upon which third density seems to pivot, the point in the hierarchy between the microcosm and the macrocosm that we all seem fixated upon in this illusion. We all seem to be on the same page in this society of seeing some priority to the separated personality self.

And similarly when we get to 4th density and construct a SMC, or return to our existing SMCs in our former homes, we will be parts of an entity which would be calling itself as an entity in an ontological-fictionesque way. Like Ra. Many of us probably dont even have names like Jesus of Nazareth didnt have before he incarnated.

Which makes the proposition of individualism, seem quite incompatible with positive path.

Quote:Well, a SMC does imply some of the conditions we'd associate with a hive mind; I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  I'm simply saying that it isn't only a hive mind.  It is a full integration between the individual and the collective premised by an unmediated connection to the "hive".  The pejorative connotation of "hive mind" is that the individual is subordinate to it.

The bold part is one of the fears which many seekers in these 'individualist' societies have.

And that fear is well-founded: The individual is indeed subordinate to the SMC, and even beyond that, it is subordinate to its own higher self, totality of himself, totality of its SMC, and ultimately, infinite intelligence.

In the material in numerous points it is told that the SMC, and Totality decide where the entity will incarnate, what it will do, and even things like preventing the hypnotized entity from telling things which is not desired to be told. We are told that wanderers can incarnate into a certain planet if their SMC or totality sees a need for the entity to incarnate into those circumstances. We are told that higher energy field governs the lower.

There is more - existence indeed has a hierarchical component.

https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=3#8

Quote:3.8 Questioner: How were the blocks moved?
Ra: I am Ra. You must picture the activity within all that is created. The energy is, though finite, quite large compared to the understanding/distortion of your peoples. This is an obvious point well known to your peoples, but little considered.

This energy is intelligent. It is hierarchical. Much as your mind/body/spirit complex dwells within an hierarchy of vehicles and retains, therefore, the shell, or shape, or field, and the intelligence of each ascendingly intelligent or balanced body, so does each atom of such a material as rock. When one can speak to that intelligence, the finite energy of the physical, or chemical, rock/body is put into contact with that infinite power which is resident in the more well-tuned bodies, be they human or rock.

With this connection made, a request may be given. The intelligence of infinite rock-ness communicates to its physical vehicle and that splitting and moving which is desired is then carried out through the displacement of the energy field of rock-ness from finity to a dimension which we may conveniently call, simply, infinity.

In this way, that which is required is accomplished due to the cooperation of the infinite understanding of the Creator indwelling in the living rock. This is, of course, the mechanism by which many things are accomplished which are not subject to your present means of physical analysis of action at a distance.

This is something that pertains to male/female aspects of existence and in more detail, matrixes, but that's a separate subject.

However, related to current subject at hand, joining a union in which everything will be shared and not being subordinate to that entire totality is really illogical. A smc is not a golf club. Actually, even golfers are pretty subordinate to their club as far as golf is concerned.


Quote:Agreed.  It's interesting to ponder what is meant by "letting go of self": does that mean the abnegation and discarding of the yellow-ray ego personality vehicle, or does it instead imply a more fluid relationship between the eternal self and this vehicle?

It would be letting go of self, as defined as an individual per this 3rd density existence. Merely the body is not enough. The entity must not be attached to any particular 'freedom' which are actually separation from rest of the existence.

Quote:And I think that what you're concerned about is a philosophy that seeks to politically prioritize this ego personality vehicle as the individual in individualism. I share your concern: I and I don't think individualism has the pure negative connotation you imply.

Again, that's what Individualism is. Ideology-ization of separation.

(02-05-2018, 11:27 AM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  I yearn for the decentralized, bottom-up governance of an actual union of soviets (worker councils).

Such anarcho-syndicalist setups are what mankind used when it broke out of 2nd density to become a civilization, and it is the embodiment of many positive principles as they can be manifested in 3rd density, however they have a major problem: They are weak against external, unified hierarchically governed threats which seek their destruction.

The situation of such anarcho-syndicalist setups in early USSR and how they werent able to fight back the invading countries and white russians (royalists) and the situation of Spanish anarchist communes demonstrate this weakness.

Moreover, one doesnt need to look to near term examples - the early agricultural revolution is rife with examples of such communities being overrun and subdued by hierarchically governed invaders.

It is a given that socialist - centralized systems will be necessary to provide the backbone of the society. Like how we have defense, judiciary, police etc today. And the basics too - whatever corresponds to free education, healthcare, transportation and so on - what is critical for the society must be provided when necessary.

There is no need to centralize furniture production, for example.


Quote:Well, to be fair, Louisabell, when socialists critique private property there's a distinction always made. No socialist wants collective ownership of the shirt on your back, or even you house, necessarily. There's a distinction to be made between private property that is a means of production, such as a factory, a bus system, etc., and personal property, which is property the individual needs to properly constitute herself in society. Socialism is not about everybody owning everything; it is about how expropriating the means of production from the ruling class to be run by everybody makes these property questions and distinctions moot. They're made mood by the allocation of property not affecting whether or not a given person gets to eat or survive.

What is more, in a positive SMC everyone's memories are each others' to share and use. Leave aside the collective energy.

Quote:
Louisabell Wrote:If you really believe that in a Libertarian society, the only thing that will spring up is fiefdoms and tyrants, then you don't really have much hope for humanity at all, and I don't think any type of centralised government would thrive.

I certainly agree with you there: as dialectical materialists, socialists often have a dim view of the human animal.

It is not a view of the mankind per se. Mankind is generally good natured.

But...

Systems like capitalism, fascism, aristocracy, feudalism etc allow people who are not good natured to get way ahead of others and concentrate power.

The person who stops maximizing his profit at any cost in a capitalist society, will eventually get outcompeted by the person who doesnt stop at any moral or ethical concern for maximizing his profit. The latter will have the wealth, hence power. And he will dictate the terms eventually. US economic landscape undeniably demonstrates this as the biggest living example.

The problem is not with the good natured majority, its with the self-centered minority.

Quote:
Louisabell Wrote:Apart from common law (no stealing, no fraud, no harm) that is conducted with a court of your peers, I just don't think I have the right to tell people what to do at gunpoint, which is essentially what happens if you don't go along with what the state want of you (including the funding and conscription of wars).

That caveat about stealing is crucial. Private property is enforced at gunpoint. Over and over again in our society, private property is elevated over basic respect for human life and dignity. Clearly something is out of whack!

Moreover, its contradictory - would a starving family father would just sit outside the vegetable garden of a libertarian who doesnt want to share his/her excess produce, and watch his children die of starvation?

What happens if he doesnt respect the wish of the farm owner and moves in to take some cabbages from the farm?
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes unity100's post:
rva_jeremy
02-05-2018, 03:43 PM,
#13
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Unity100 Wrote:You are still mixing individual-ness and individualism into the same concept.

I get that that's what you're hearing. I'm confident I've made repeated distinctions between political, ideological individualism and the kind of more general enlightenment concept of individualism that has been building since the Renaissance. It's possible you just draw a harder line between them than I do, which is fine as long as we can be clear about it.

Individualism as an ideal in the 21st century seems downright right-wing only because it has had 500 years to become taken for granted in the west. Obviously in feudal times, the idea that an individual would think and speak solely for himself in a political or religious context was pretty radical and, dare I say, left-wing. So I think the issue here is that it's ambiguous what time frame Jim is referring to when he speaks of individualism. Given the ambiguity, I was simply pointing out that I interpreted it differently than you.

I was hoping to give you a positive way to interpret Jim's words, but I don't always succeed in my arguments. Oh well, the catalyst just keeps on pouring. Smile 

Thanks Unity100! And I'd like to respond to some of your other points outside the definitional debate, which I hope we can put to rest in order to have those juicier conversations  Smile

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 05:41 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-05-2018, 11:14 PM by Louisabell.)
#14
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Oh, whoa, I don't know how I got myself into a political debate on Bring 4th. I don't want to get too into it, but I feel as though I need to make a few points to clear things up, which Jeremy has helped with.

First of all, I would like the law of the land to be a Libertarian common law. This is simply because to me it is the rule of law that best respects the freewill of other selves, and provides the best universal protections.

That does not mean that within this system there can't be other systems that are built upon the principals of a commune or a co-op. For example, I quite like the technologically advanced society that Jacque Fresco lays out in the popular YouTube documentary Zeitgeist. A resource-based economy sounds pretty good to me, because again, I just want to live in a way where I can have a garden, my own room, and then maximal opportunity for service to other selves.

But I can see how even Jacque Fresco's vision could be turned dystopic if people aren't allowed to leave when they want.

We need freedom, autonomy and the right to leave a system that is no longer working for us to be able to reach the promise land in the first place.

As for the threat of people starving under a Libertarian framework - well people are starving right now. That's right, with all the social programs there are, children are going hungry in the USA. How is this possible? Well, the state didn't invent charity, and its also not very good at it.

Throwing money at a problem (which is essentially what the government does) does not solve the problem. People don't just need money, they need a support system. They need a community. They need someone to listen to their life story. They need EMPATHY. Why do you think there is such a huge opioid addiction? Well, these drugs give a feeling of artificial empathy.

Only one individual to another can provide empathy, therefore I would question anyone's attachment and dependence on using the state as a vehicle for solving the problems of society. Can beauty come from violence? I don't think so.

But again, I am brought back to the sentiment that I do not have the right to tell people what do to (apart from upholding common law, which is only there to provide universal protections). It is not in my moral compass, or in my nature, so I cannot do it. The ends do not justify the means for me. The ends are simply abstractions in our mind, the means - the very stuff of life. I cannot vote for it, because I will not be complicit in all the wars, including the drug war which is appalling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Louisabell's post:
rva_jeremy
02-05-2018, 05:46 PM,
#15
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Am I the only one who bristled at the interviewer describing Jim as having been influenced by David Wilcock?

LOL

Jim's humility and equanimity never ceases to amaze me.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like rva_jeremy's post:
Bring4th_Jade, Louisabell
02-13-2018, 06:57 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-17-2018, 09:06 PM by unity100.)
#16
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-05-2018, 03:43 PM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  
Unity100 Wrote:You are still mixing individual-ness and individualism into the same concept.

I get that that's what you're hearing. I'm confident I've made repeated distinctions between political, ideological individualism and the kind of more general enlightenment concept of individualism that has been building since the Renaissance. It's possible you just draw a harder line between them than I do, which is fine as long as we can be clear about it.

You seem to be talking about humanism...

(02-05-2018, 05:41 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  First of all, I would like the law of the land to be a Libertarian common law. This is simply because to me it is the rule of law that best respects the freewill of other selves, and provides the best universal protections.

That does not mean that within this system there can't be other systems that are built upon the principals of a commune or a co-op. For example, I quite like the technologically advanced society that Jacque Fresco lays out in the popular YouTube documentary Zeitgeist.

Actually, it does mean that within that system there cant be other systems built on different principles:

For the simple reason that any different system (anarchism, communism, socialism, any pluralist ideology) will conflict with the interests of the segment which consolidated the libertarian system.

Consolidate they will, because in a system built on allowing ownership of large property as private property and profit maximization, consolidation is inevitable - by might or right, by smart competition or sheer inheritance, eventually a segment will consolidate majority of the property, and with that, strategic resources in their hands.

When those who hold majority of assets as property acquire ownership of a river nearby, the freedom and fate of the farmers who have been using that farm for farming are now null and void. Because, even if you provide them the freedom to leave, chances are high that wherever they can migrate to will be already consolidated by other big property holders. Leaving aside that they would have to sell their now-unprofitable farms for dimes.

That's exactly what happened in Late Roman Republic and Early Imperial eras, and its what paved the way for serfdom.

Quote:We need freedom, autonomy and the right to leave a system that is no longer working for us to be able to reach the promise land in the first place.

Anarcho-syndicalism is what you are describing. And it requires the abolition of ownership of strategic resources as private property to prevent what's described above from happening.


Quote:As for the threat of people starving under a Libertarian framework - well people are starving right now. That's right, with all the social programs there are, children are going hungry in the USA. How is this possible? Well, the state didn't invent charity, and its also not very good at it.

Actually, state is very good at charity, and there are no people starving elsewhere in developed world. This only happens in US. And the reason for that is nothing else than such tendencies like libertarianism preparing an ideological ground for sociopath private interests to push policies that facilitate such starvation for profit.


Quote:Throwing money at a problem (which is essentially what the government does) does not solve the problem. People don't just need money, they need a support system. They need a community. They need someone to listen to their life story. They need EMPATHY.


Empathy doesnt remedy hunger.

People need food first. A roof. Health.

And these cannot be done without money. Every single developed country, as mentioned before, solved these issues by throwing money at the problem. Because, this is how it is solved.

The reason why throwing money at the problem isnt solving anything in US is because you are not throwing money at the problem at all - you are throwing money at tax breaks for large corporations.


Quote:Why do you think there is such a huge opioid addiction? Well, these drugs give a feeling of artificial empathy.  

People whose prospects are nil due to a capitalist system giving ever less wages in spite of increased productivity in order to be able to maximize minority's profit, trying to find ways to escape their reality in drugs or other means is a different topic. It is huge, and it is tangential to this one.


Quote:Only one individual to another can provide empathy, therefore I would question anyone's attachment and dependence on using the state as a vehicle for solving the problems of society. Can beauty come from violence? I don't think so.

Proposing that taxation and state programs are 'violence' is some abomination that exists nowhere else in the world aside from US.

That's probably the reason why entire developed rest of the world, Europe, Japan, Australia, numerous smaller South Asian countries were able to solve these problems by 'throwing money at the problem' and 'state violence', but, US still has 40 million people on the brink of starvation. Working families to boot.

The way Ra puts it is the best response to arguments such as the one you posed:

https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=42#7


Quote:Questioner: I would like to try to make an analogy for this in third density. Many entities here feel great compassion toward relieving the physical problems of third-density other-selves by administering to them in many ways, bringing them food if there is hunger as there is in the African nations now, bringing them medicine if they believe they require administering to them medically, and being selfless in all of these services to a very great extent.

This is creating a polarization or a vibration that is in harmony with green ray or fourth density. However, it is not balanced with the understanding of fifth density that these entities are experiencing catalyst and a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth density than it would be to administer to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2018, 11:33 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-16-2018, 11:40 AM by rva_jeremy.)
#17
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Unity100, I've been thinking about how to pose this question for a week.

I agree with you that reality is hierarchically organized. That seems clear from multiple sources of information.

However, it seems like there is a positive and negative way to realize hierarchy. For example, the Orion Confederation organizes hierarchically, with successes of subordinates yielding to folks higher on the stack. This appears to be negative and not at all what you mean, so there's some reconciliation to which we must attend if we want to be clear about the usefulness of hierarchy.

So given that you appear to advocate for a solution to our political issues that embraces hierarchy, what is the principle that separates STO-oriented hierarchy from STS-oriented hierarchy at least when it comes to how we organize?

I'll suggest a way to reconcile this point, which I consider foundational to my approach to life. Legitimate hierarchies exist without the exertion of force to create them. Illegitimate hierarchies exist precisely because energy needs to be introduced to maintain them. In other words, STS hierarchies are manufactured and imposed upon reality, whereas STO hierarchies are discovered and recognized in reality.

As an anarchist I feel it deep in my bones that political hierarchy is less than ideal. It is not because hierarchy in and of itself is a faulty mechanism of organizing, viewing, and marshaling the resources of reality. It is instead that a given entity in third density does not see enough of reality to recognize the inherent hierarchy already at work. I can identity a few problems with political hierarchy:

1. in third density it is nearly impossible to achieve the level of trust and transparency necessary to allow the hierarchy to run "on all cylinders", that is, to leverage everybody's full capacity towards a common goal. It instead requires the disciplining of lower members by higher members, through police, laws, rules, management, etc. This disciplining creates friction, leads to some getting more than others, and generally undermines the hierarchy's effectiveness--in a very similar manner to how the Orion hierarchy is described by Ra as drifting regularly into entropic conditions.

2. hierarchies tend to ossify power structures around particular individuals. Hierarchical organization does not imply a static arrangement of nodes within the hierarchy, in other words. Democracy gets a closer to this but elite culture undermines it. For example, it may be in a certain situation that person A should be at the top and person B at the bottom. But the idea that person A is the appropriate leader in every single conceivable situation the hierarchy might encounter seems ludicrous. Indeed, I predict that in fourth density we will organize hierarchically but without the static arrangement that our present institutions need. So sometimes you'll be in charge, other times you'll be taking orders, and we'll have the common trust to make that possible. Indeed, I see STO hierarchy as a pyramid that is constantly shifting its components, instead of statically arranged. The power is organized hierarchically, but nobody is owns the power personally.

3. I think instances of hierarchy in nature tend to arrange units into relationships where, at each level, interests are distinct but mutually reinforcing. An ecosystem works this way where every participant benefits in some unique way. The bacteria's telos, as it were, is not the same as the lion's, but each participates in the hierarchy to their unique benefit. In humankind, our interests are not so unique, so I wonder how to map the kind of natural hierarchy that we observe throughout the creation to third density institutions.

Would be very interested in your thoughts, thank you.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2018, 11:08 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-17-2018, 12:54 AM by Louisabell.)
#18
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-13-2018, 06:57 PM)unity100 Wrote:  For the simple reason that any different system (anarchism, communism, socialism, any pluralist ideology) will conflict with the interests of the segment which consolidated the libertarian system.

The ‘interests’ of the segment which want a libertarian system are people who want you to have your own freedom, because they want their own freedom, and a system which recognises and protects universal freedoms is the surest way to get that for themselves and future generations.

Part of those freedoms is the ability to organise with other people into any kind of society you want. The only stipulation is that you can’t force people to stay in your system, but apparently you can’t let that go? That is deeply shocking to me.

(02-13-2018, 06:57 PM)unity100 Wrote:  Consolidate they will, because in a system built on allowing ownership of large property as private property and profit maximization, consolidation is inevitable - by might or right, by smart competition or sheer inheritance, eventually a segment will consolidate majority of the property, and with that, strategic resources in their hands.

Or maybe all people that are pro-Marxist will organise themselves, combine their efforts and create their own utopian society. Maybe with their combined financial and intellectual power they will accumulate vast strategic resources. Maybe in a free-market of ideas, where societies can be allowed to harmoniously compete with each-other, the kind of society you want will be so successful and endearing to others that you will have the greatest stretches of land, the greatest number of people, and the best technologies.

And yet, you have such little faith in your ideology that you have to force people into it?

(02-13-2018, 06:57 PM)unity100 Wrote:  When those who hold majority of assets as property acquire ownership of a river nearby, the freedom and fate of the farmers who have been using that farm for farming are now null and void. Because, even if you provide them the freedom to leave, chances are high that wherever they can migrate to will be already consolidated by other big property holders. Leaving aside that they would have to sell their now-unprofitable farms for dimes.

Farmers tend to have their own source of water. If that source of water is impeded you can sue. You sue for damages to your property and business.

(02-13-2018, 06:57 PM)unity100 Wrote:  That's exactly what happened in Late Roman Republic and Early Imperial eras, and its what paved the way for serfdom.

The Roman Republic was largely controlled by an aristocracy and serfdom existed a lot earlier than that. Also one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell was because farmers were forced to ally themselves with invading forces as Roman officials kept stealing their harvest. Many people in the cities starved when the free grain ran out. Why does this keep happening, where “state-owned” resources just seem to eventually run out?

(02-13-2018, 06:57 PM)unity100 Wrote:  Anarcho-syndicalism is what you are describing. And it requires the abolition of ownership of strategic resources as private property to prevent what's described above from happening.

Why do these systems and other Marxist offshoots always require you to give up your property first (thereby giving up your ability to produce goods and services and support yourself)? Moreover, I think it has been shown the world over many times that personal capital accumulation is essential for the ingenuity and entrepreneurism that improves the quality of everyone’s life. But hey, if you want to experiment with an unproven and potentially dangerous system, then go right ahead; just don’t force me into it.

I’m not going to directly answer your other quotes because you’re making such sweeping generalisations that aren’t arguments that I can’t even think of how to reply. But I do find it ironic that you’re upset that corporations have co-opted your government programs, and yet you think the remedy is a more entrenched government. Also no-one is disputing the fact that a hungry person should be given actual food.

I think what this argument really comes down to, and why we’ll probably never come to any agreement, is that we are identifying very different moral hazards in society. I see a big moral hazard in society as centralised power that uses violence to enforce its will. The pay-off to exploit this system is just too great, and you will have people, even family dynasties, that focus all their energy on taking advantage of such powers. Maybe it’s OK for a few generations, but the exploits of such systems seem to always become so heavily abused that the incentive to take more out of the system then is contributed becomes endemic.  

I recognise a moral hazard in society that you are presenting is that individuals won’t engage in equitable and charitable dealings with eachother enough unless they’re forced into a particular political system that makes this a necessity. So even if you could create a perfect political system where everyone is looked after, wouldn’t this also eliminate the need for a generous spirit on a personal level? I mean it would eliminate the need for a lot of virtuous qualities in the individual, as these become more and more “state provided”. It’s sort of a paradoxical way of thinking, and I wonder how much people are projecting their own personalities onto what they believe a government structure should be, as oppose to thinking about what is actually realistic.

(02-16-2018, 11:33 AM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  Indeed, I predict that in fourth density we will organize hierarchically but without the static arrangement that our present institutions need. So sometimes you'll be in charge, other times you'll be taking orders, and we'll have the common trust to make that possible.  Indeed, I see STO hierarchy as a pyramid that is constantly shifting its components, instead of statically arranged. The power is organized hierarchically, but nobody is owns the power personally.

Jeremy, I have to challenge you on the notion that a STO society needs a hierarchy at all. A hierarchy is concerned with assessments of relative power, but what would be the point of such ways of thinking in a STO society? Perhaps there would be some need of it for teacher-student relationships, but we can all agree that just because someone is an expert in one particular area does not mean they are superior in all areas.

If you look at the example of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, these discoveries have shown us that we can have de-centralised financial systems. As these systems are really just decentralised ways of sharing information, I don’t see how we can’t also have legal or political systems based on this technology. I have caught myself thinking Satoshi might be a wanderer, come to give us some clarity on how we may proceed forward in a more positive fashion.  Blush  

I believe the only true hierarchy is that of the family structure, based on generational contracts and certain biological realities, but in the positive sense it is a hierarchy based on in-depth, loving relationships. You can give up your power somewhat because you have full trust that this person that you depend on only wants the best for you, therefore it is a type of vulnerability that serves all those involved. I think this is the only natural way one should have to submit their will to the authority of another. It can be difficult though, I know I had a difficult upbringing and these loving/trusting bonds are not always formed perfectly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2018, 11:01 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-17-2018, 11:14 AM by rva_jeremy.)
#19
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Louisabell Wrote:Why do these systems and other Marxist offshoots always require you to give up your property first (thereby giving up your ability to produce goods and services and support yourself)?

I think I understand why you feel this way, but you could also reframe it to its opposite: why do classical liberal systems always require you to participate in a system of property title in order to have dignity and survive?

Now, I'm familiar enough with Austrian economics, Lockean property theory, and Objectivism to know some of the answers to that question. But there are also answers to your question.  I just want to point out that both the Marxist approach and the classical liberal approach assume a philosophical framework that sort of narrows what is possible to think and ask about (For what it's worth I am not a marxist, I think Marx was a good historian but a flawed economist too focused on the peculiarities of industrialism in the 19th century).

To answer your question, Louisabell, it's important to first recognize that property is not a given. Even within libertarian circles there are debates about what constitutes legitimate property: (1) the Georgist school claims that property in land is inherently different than other kinds of property, (2) raging debates about intellectual property, (3) debates about whether it is legitimate to "sell yourself into slavery" (i.e. whether there are kinds of transactions that can be voluntary and still be illegitimate).

So, what I'm trying to establish is that property is not a given. It instead has its roots in social norms, power dynamics, etc. There is not property, in other words, that precedes human construction: it is 100% a human construct that either serves us or doesn't. In light of that, what's important to understand about the socialist approach to property is that we do not see all property as equal. Owning the shirt on your back is not the same thing as owning the land on which you stand. Owning a house is not the same thing as owning a factory that has a hundred families dependent on you. If you take nothing else away from this conversation, please take away the idea from a socialist point of view it's not about private property as you think of it; private property and personal property are different concepts, so conflating them together paints an inaccurate picture of the position.

Socialists believe in running an economy democratically, trading off the inefficiencies of that kind of management for the efficiencies that arise from ensuring people have everything they need to live in dignity. If you ask me, it's really that simple.  Now, I'm not a statist socialist; I'm more of a libertarian socialist, which means I think we can organize on a more fluid basis to meet our needs collectively than calling up the army or the cops whenever we have a disagreement. I think that people who had genuine freedom -- not the capitalist freedom to sleep under bridges, as they say, but real freedom to choose the direction of their life without having to starve over it -- would organize far more collectively than we now do, because that's been how humans have lived for most of their millennia of pre-history.

Furthermore, it is the system of private property that creates conditions of want, hunger and subjugation that force us all to compete with each other, creating a need for us to protect and accrue more property. I agree with Unity100 totally that this is a fear based system. And with respect to your point about the link between capital accumulation and innovation, I can only say that most of the foundational inventions in human history were not funded by huge amounts of money, but instead arose from human ingenuity on the ground and shared more or less freely. It is only in an economy that favors accumulated capital that people without that accumulated capital must work incessantly and not have the time to improve their own lives through innovation, forcing us to do in the market what we used to do normally. Indeed, I'd argue that capitalism creates a dynamic where we tend to frame problems and solutions in terms of things that require lots of capital, when that's just one way to solve problems and there are others that require less capital (and, say, more labor, or more coordination, etc).

Louisabell Wrote:Jeremy, I have to challenge you on the notion that a STO society needs a hierarchy at all. A hierarchy is concerned with assessments of relative power, but what would be the point of such ways of thinking in a STO society? Perhaps there would be some need of it for teacher-student relationships, but we can all agree that just because someone is an expert in one particular area does not mean they are superior in all areas.

But that's precisely what I said:

Jeremy Wrote:For example, it may be in a certain situation that person A should be at the top and person B at the bottom. But the idea that person A is the appropriate leader in every single conceivable situation the hierarchy might encounter seems ludicrous.

My point is that you can have a structure of organization that doesn't rely on specific people always occupying specific nodes of that organization. It is useful to have leaders, but not to have permanent leaders, in other words. That kind of fluidity takes trust and transparency of which we are presently incapable. But the great thing about a hierarchy is its ability to focus a group on a single task. What we need are ways of doing that that involve everybody in an equal manner and that don't ossify particular people in particular positions.

Louisabell Wrote:If you look at the example of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, these discoveries have shown us that we can have de-centralised financial systems. As these systems are really just decentralised ways of sharing information, I don’t see how we can’t also have legal or political systems based on this technology.

I agree that it's exciting to have a decentralized way of sharing information. But there is still a hierarchy to Bitcoin: the more compute power you control, the more new coins you're able to mine. There are power differentials, and Satoshi being an anarcho-capitalist wasn't trying to solve that problem, I understand, but it's important to recognize that any currency system reduces all values to numbers in that system, leaving out other factors as a type of discarded remainder.

I'm not against markets per se; I'm against this kind of market fundamentalism that sees any values that can't be represented in the cash nexus as somehow invalid or unimportant. And I think there are communal ways of decentralizing that can be just as effective as these more market-oriented ways. The difference is that while communal-oriented mechanisms encourage social bonds, trust, etc, market-oriented mechanisms encourage clearing transactions where both parties can walk away without ever needing to have anything to do with each other.

Louisabell Wrote:I believe the only true hierarchy is that of the family structure, based on generational contracts and certain biological realities, but in the positive sense it is a hierarchy based on in-depth, loving relationships.

You might be right about that. I'm not in favor of hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy, and if we can organize without it I'm fine. My argument is simply that it's not hierarchy per se that's the problem, but the idea of having a permanent identity tied to a particular position in the hierarchy. That's what makes people grasp and climb: if positions in the hierarchy were perfectly fluid and democratic, capturing those positions wouldn't hold the same appeal.

Thanks for your thoughts, Louisabell, and for hearing me out!

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2018, 11:11 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-17-2018, 11:27 AM by rva_jeremy.)
#20
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Oh one more thing:

Louisabell Wrote:Or maybe all people that are pro-Marxist will organise themselves, combine their efforts and create their own utopian society. Maybe with their combined financial and intellectual power they will accumulate vast strategic resources. Maybe in a free-market of ideas, where societies can be allowed to harmoniously compete with each-other, the kind of society you want will be so successful and endearing to others that you will have the greatest stretches of land, the greatest number of people, and the best technologies.

A few points:

1. Every time people have tried to do this--organize themselves within the existing system--the state and corporations and capitalists have conspired to break them by force. The labor movement of the 19th and 20th centuries is ample evidence of this, see the Ludlow Massacre for example. This is just one of the many ways the state subsidizes the rich and private property in the hands of an elite few.

2. We don't live in a free market! We live in a market dominated by state regulation favoring corporations, intellectual property laws that constrain innovation, central banking designed to maintain a certain level of unemployment, and for that matter corporations themselves are state-created entities. Maybe in a genuinely free market we would be more collectivist (I actually wrote an essay on this that got published in a book called "Markets not Capitalism" which you can check out here: Let the Free Market Eat the Rich: Economic Entropy as Revolutionary Redistribution. I don't necessarily hold all the same positions as I did when I wrote that, but it's a decent argument for why the market as we know it looks like this, and is not free in any real sense of the word. The point I make in the essay is that the ability of the rich to both accumulate and maintain the accumulation of their property is subsidized by massive, massive state intervention, and in an economy free of state interference there would be diseconomies of scale that would deplete capital accumulations beyond a certain size).

3. Why should market competition decide what system we live in? What is it about competition that delivers the best arrangement of human beings? I understand arguments for competition as leading to the most efficient distribution of property (I disagree with those arguments but I at least understand them) but this market fundamentalism that sees markets as the solution to every human problem strikes me as utterly simplistic and anti-humanist.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes rva_jeremy's post:
Nicholas
02-17-2018, 06:15 PM,
#21
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-17-2018, 11:11 AM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  3. Why should market competition decide what system we live in? What is it about competition that delivers the best arrangement of human beings? I understand arguments for competition as leading to the most efficient distribution of property (I disagree with those arguments but I at least understand them) but this market fundamentalism that sees markets as the solution to every human problem strikes me as utterly simplistic and anti-humanist.

Absolutely agree. Competition is only useful if we are focused on our desire to improve ourselves on an individual level. We have an objective benchmark rather than a rival to measure ourselves against. But the whole "natural" argument of competition on a wider platform is divorced of nuance, and perpetuated by smart fools that have not touched base with their inherent depth. It's akin to the average persons aversion to a "deep" conversation. Yes, if you are industrious and desire driven you will undoubtedly encounter success. But as you say, it requires an ideologically separatist consensus that outright refutes any form of collectivism, regardless of the "natural" (symbiotic) evidence. It comes back to the "fear of possession". Or more to the point, the fear of being dispossessed of one's successes, which is like severing the umbilical chord of ones own identity.
...the highest wisdom is to suffer all men to have full liberty to think on all subjects in their own way. - OAHSPE  
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2018, 10:08 PM, (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 12:31 AM by unity100.)
#22
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-16-2018, 11:33 AM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  Unity100, I've been thinking about how to pose this question for a week.

I agree with you that reality is hierarchically organized. That seems clear from multiple sources of information.

However, it seems like there is a positive and negative way to realize hierarchy. For example, the Orion Confederation organizes hierarchically, with successes of subordinates yielding to folks higher on the stack. This appears to be negative and not at all what you mean, so there's some reconciliation to which we must attend if we want to be clear about the usefulness of hierarchy.

So given that you appear to advocate for a solution to our political issues that embraces hierarchy, what is the principle that separates STO-oriented hierarchy from STS-oriented hierarchy at least when it comes to how we organize?

I spoke about hierarchical nature of existence due to the fact that many entities have trouble in such a concept due to the philosophy of individualism that is rampant in the west. Some seekers seem to think that they can just be separate, ie 'individual', and still somehow ascend to high vibrations that involve adept work. This is a more subtle topic than the concept of social systems and structures. Which has relation to this topic, but not to the degree emphasized here.

When the word hierarchy is used, an average persona in such a culture immediately starts thinking of rigid 'totalitarian' (a broad, vague concept) 'collectives' in which the 'individual' has 'no freedom' (another broad, vague concept) or outright thinks about negative hierarchical exploitation schemes like fascism, feudalism.

Whereas these are true negative schemes in actuality, the streak of 'individualism' and separation is applied to even the societal construct they are living in, estranging them from other selves. So much that in many cases in which they would need to act harmoniously inside a group for a particular aim for the good of entire group, entities act selfishly and pursue their own self interest out of selfishness or from reflexive lash of conditioning of separation labeled as individualism.

The biases and conditioning of the current society, especially the one in United States, causes a lot of confusion in this concept.

......

Hierarchy in a sense is inevitable for any multi-entity organization. Ie, just like how any given reader who is reading these lines now is actually a social memory complex, a collective of sorts, which consists of uncountable individual entities (bacteria) merged together into a unified, harmonized, co-creating entity, similarly higher social manifestations must also harmonize and unify.

As for difference in between negative and positive hierarchical organizations:

Quote:I'll suggest a way to reconcile this point, which I consider foundational to my approach to life. Legitimate hierarchies exist without the exertion of force to create them. Illegitimate hierarchies exist precisely because energy needs to be introduced to maintain them. In other words, STS hierarchies are manufactured and imposed upon reality, whereas STO hierarchies are discovered and recognized in reality.

Positive or negative, a unified collective will need to exert some energy to keep their society going. Things do not happen with zero effort.

In the positive hierarchy, the unified collective of all entities which an entity is a member of, would use its power for the entirety of the collective. In a negative organization, of course, its the opposite.

Enforcement and non enforcement is a bit irrelevant actually, because in a positive collective a negative entity wont be able to find a place, hence the manifestation of the positive environment already enforces its own rules and guidelines even at an energetic level.

In the simple, most energetic level, in a positive society, the collective energy flows towards every member of the society and outwards from there, in a negative one, the energy flows from every member of the society to those at the top/center of the hierarchy.

This flow of energy also gets mirrored in social interactions of entities - whereas positive collective acts together, takes care of every member, it treats every member equally, the negative structure will be a pyramid of exploitation in which those higher in hierarchical rank get the most, and those lower in the pyramid progressively get less.

My understanding is that hierarchical organization in positive collectives is more horizontal (ie, people electing a representative for a given number of people - this is also described in description of confederation by Ra). In our density we can give examples of cooperatives in which every entity has equal share and equal decision power, electing representatives/managers for every given number of people. For example in Mondragon Cooperative, this is 1 manager elected by every 500 workers or something. And these managers all together elect a chief executive. There isnt more hierarchy than that.

Interestingly, Silicon Valley corporations also imitate this to noticeable extent - most are not cooperatives and all members dont have equal share and say, but giving shares to employees is incorporated as stock options, and even if a vote is not given to the employees, many corporations try to keep their hierarchy as horizontal as possible. For example Google at one point even got rid of project managers to cut the pyramid and made individual engineers directly report to executives. But this resulted in a considerable amount of chaos and was reverted. And Google isnt even the best example to give for a positive organization in the state it is in today. However not only this organization, but almost the majority of the tech corporations give a lot of say to their members in how things are run even if they do not give voting shares.

Even in such environments as tech companies, which cannot be labeled properly (yet) as positive organizations, an entity who is too individualist sticks out like a sore thumb, creates friction and problems. Teamwork, cooperation, group-consciousness are promoted in practically every tech company. Microsoft under Steve Balmer has been an example of what the opposite concepts, namely competition fueled by individualism and self interest can do to a tech organization. And no other tech company seems to be willing to risk that.

Quote:As an anarchist I feel it deep in my bones that political hierarchy is less than ideal. It is not because hierarchy in and of itself is a faulty mechanism of organizing, viewing, and marshaling the resources of reality. It is instead that a given entity in third density does not see enough of reality to recognize the inherent hierarchy already at work. I can identity a few problems with political hierarchy:

The biggest hierarchy is existence itself, with infinite intelligence being at the top of the hierarchy and everything towards down below acting accordingly.

Then again, this hierarchy is also horizontal, because infinite intelligence is comprised of infinite entities, therefore it manifests directly through these entities. However, it is still there - none of us is operating outside infinite intelligence itself, even less the rules of the reality created by it, which also happen to be its nature.

In a social setting anarcho-syndicalist collectives would manifest such an organization. Of course as the vibrations rise and entities approach smc state, the collective would synchronize and act together even closer.

Quote:It instead requires the disciplining of lower members by higher members, through police, laws, rules, management, etc. This disciplining creates friction, leads to some getting more than others, and generally undermines the hierarchy's effectiveness--in a very similar manner to how the Orion hierarchy is described by Ra as drifting regularly into entropic conditions.

Simply because members of a negative smc all try to manipulate the smc for their own gain, manifesting a totally separated individualist agenda. For them, it is all for that particular entity - not all for one or one for all, definitely not one for all (ie Jesus of Nazareth).

Quote:So sometimes you'll be in charge, other times you'll be taking orders, and we'll have the common trust to make that possible.

This is an important bit.

In a positive environment entities wouldnt be so specialized as cogs in a machine. A smc making all memories and energies of everyone available to everyone should make every other member as proficient in a given task as the other. In short, the entities in a positive smc should be interchangeable, and therefore the collective much more flexible.

The proposition of Karl Marx regarding a communist society in which a person being a fisherman one day, whereas a teacher another day, with no one being pigeonholed to ultra specialized roles is an attention-grabbing idea in that regard.

Quote:3. I think instances of hierarchy in nature tend to arrange units into relationships where, at each level, interests are distinct but mutually reinforcing. An ecosystem works this way where every participant benefits in some unique way. The bacteria's telos, as it were, is not the same as the lion's, but each participates in the hierarchy to their unique benefit. In humankind, our interests are not so unique, so I wonder how to map the kind of natural hierarchy that we observe throughout the creation to third density institutions.

Would be very interested in your thoughts, thank you.

Hierarchical nature of creation goes much further than the points have been raised in this thread up to this point:

In a smc, the entire smc is not only a much larger entity that permeates every member, but it also is the provider of each member - its an emerging nexus of co-creator that is coming to being with the members of the smc increasingly getting closer. In short, the smc is already a creator of the reality within the smc, but also it is an upcoming creatory nexus just like any other creatory nexus. Like how a planet becomes a co-creator after the entities reach smc status, as mentioned by ra.

Which is not so different a phenomenon than actual existence - the sun, the local logos, is hierarchically higher, but its also bigger, and an entity which encompasses all the entities manifesting here. Even if some entities came from different logoi (like the deneb spirits for example), these entities are still within the reality of this logos, and they manifest with the energy of this logos.

Therefore the nature, desire and direction of the logos just manifests itself through the energy that every other co-creator in this reality takes and spends. So, things are as logos wants, because in this region of existence, it is so - the reality of this part of existence is this logos, after all, and its co-creators.

Co-creators can tweak and modify the coming energy and direction, but still this energy flows in accordance with the nature of this logos.

A smc is no different. It is a co-creatory nexus which bends and modifies the energy that comes to it by the local logos, the sun, and the members of the smc also bend and modify the energy that comes to them via smc, and naturally the sun.

Social groups are no different actually. Even if they put no rules, they still have a culture, which actually dictates the way members behave. Any given social convention, condition, behavior model just fits into this group.

(02-16-2018, 11:08 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  
(02-13-2018, 06:57 PM)unity100 Wrote:  For the simple reason that any different system (anarchism, communism, socialism, any pluralist ideology) will conflict with the interests of the segment which consolidated the libertarian system.

The ‘interests’ of the segment which want a libertarian system are people who want you to have your own freedom, because they want their own freedom, and a system which recognises and protects universal freedoms is the surest way to get that for themselves and future generations.

Part of those freedoms is the ability to organise with other people into any kind of society you want. The only stipulation is that you can’t force people to stay in your system, but apparently you can’t let that go? That is deeply shocking to me.

What happens if some elements in that libertarian environment just dont give any credence to 'you cant force people' part.

That is the question.

Quote:Farmers tend to have their own source of water. If that source of water is impeded you can sue. You sue for damages to your property and business.

Sue? In which court? With the enforcement of court decision being done by whom...

The moment you said 'court' and 'sue', you have just made it a given that an over-arching social organization which is able to pass judgment on legal matters and enforce them exists in your libertarian society.

That means there is a state.

Just a 'court' with an assembly of libertarian individuals passing a judgment doesnt mean anything, since a party to the issue can just ignore that decision.

Someone will have to enforce that decision.

If a collection of people are elected to enforce that decision, and go to the affected property, that would duly end up being an enforcement of rules. Actually, what rules? Who even set the rules in these libertarian society with which the damages to a farmer can be judged?

The other property owner can just ignore those rules, and refuse to obey. And if he suddenly manifests more 'enforcement power' than the libertarian denizens who came to enforce the decision on him in total contradiction with their non-enforcement ideology, what will happen?

So the guilty party is more powerful than the supposed enforcers. He may have hired a group of people to defend 'his rights'. And the number of men hired by him can be bigger than the number of libertarians which came to enforce that decision - again, in total contradiction with the ideology, to emphasize again.

If the libertarian community sends a bigger crowd to enforce the decision, then...

It just means that the libertarian state is basically sending a larger army to enforce its decision and rules on a member...

And at that point, the libertarian idea contradicts itself.

Quote:The Roman Republic was largely controlled by an aristocracy and serfdom existed a lot earlier than that.

That statement is flatly incorrect. Not only the circumstances of early and middle roman republic were much different than what you seem to imagine, serfdom is a specific term whose condition came to being towards late roman empire, materializing in the reality of medieval europe.

Quote:Also one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell was because farmers were forced to ally themselves with invading forces as Roman officials kept stealing their harvest.

No such thing in actual reality. There isnt anything more to say about this, apologies, because no such thing existed. It may exist in deep recesses of conservative leaning forums and think-thanks, however.

In real world, the 'fall' of the roman empire did not change much for the ordinary person, which was just a change of masters. And that is one major reason why it happened so fast and easily.

Quote:Why do these systems and other Marxist offshoots always require you to give up your property first (thereby giving up your ability to produce goods and services and support yourself)?

Because the mineral rights of a nation, rights to a river, water resources, state-wide farmlands are not 'your property'.

A small farm can be. A house, can be. A local creek, may be.

But, something that cannot be utilized by a single person, or a family, something which is needed by the activities of many, many people cannot be a private property.

The moment something like that is made into private property, its a feudal domain, and the owner is de facto feudal lord.

Contrary to the libertarian illusion, the owner of such a property will not let its rights get compromised by any view or ideology - s/he will just hire a small army and bash the heads in of anyone who comprises his/her own interests. This includes any small farmer that may need to use those water resources. Or a blacksmith who may want to use the iron to produce something.

Long story short, there is no freedom to individuals in a society in which individuals can dominate massive strategic resources.

Quote:Moreover, I think it has been shown the world over many times that personal capital accumulation is essential for the ingenuity and entrepreneurism that improves the quality of everyone’s life.

That's patently incorrect, however that is a long historical debate, which i will avoid at this point.

Quote:I think what this argument really comes down to, and why we’ll probably never come to any agreement, is that we are identifying very different moral hazards in society. I see a big moral hazard in society as centralised power that uses violence to enforce its will.

And yet, ironically, a centralized power that comes to being by individuals amassing massive resources and manpower as private property, with no accountability for their actions and with unbounded power over whatever they can lay their hands on, is not a moral hazard.

So, Walton family is not a moral hazard. But a democratically elected state which runs a social program, is.

That's contradiction flat out.

Quote:If you look at the example of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, these discoveries have shown us that we can have de-centralised financial systems. As these systems are really just decentralised ways of sharing information, I don’t see how we can’t also have legal or political systems based on this technology. I have caught myself thinking Satoshi might be a wanderer, come to give us some clarity on how we may proceed forward in a more positive fashion.  Blush  

At the risk of shattering a libertarian illusion - all of those decentralized cryptochains are run by projects which have a finite number of people, with there being someone who decides the direction they will take. The moment project's leadership decides something else, that will happen with the blockchain.

Quote:I believe the only true hierarchy is that of the family structure, based on generational contracts and certain biological realities, but in the positive sense it is a hierarchy based on in-depth, loving relationships. You can give up your power somewhat because you have full trust that this person that you depend on only wants the best for you, therefore it is a type of vulnerability that serves all those involved. I think this is the only natural way one should have to submit their will to the authority of another. It can be difficult though, I know I had a difficult upbringing and these loving/trusting bonds are not always formed perfectly.

And therein comes the real shock:

Quote:Or maybe all people that are pro-Marxist will organise themselves, combine their efforts and create their own utopian society. Maybe with their combined financial and intellectual power they will accumulate vast strategic resources. Maybe in a free-market of ideas, where societies can be allowed to harmoniously compete with each-other, the kind of society you want will be so successful and endearing to others that you will have the greatest stretches of land, the greatest number of people, and the best technologies.

And yet, you have such little faith in your ideology that you have to force people into it?

The loving hierarchy of family structure ends up much contradiction with the propositions you have counted up to this point:

Every member of the family uses all family assets as needed, without having to pay for them. In return, each of which contribute to the well being of the family according to their ability. In return, they are all given according to they need. A family member which needs care is not just ignored - the old member of the family is still cared for by the others at no cost, and the children of the family can eat as much as they want according to family's means.

None of them is charged money for any of these services. None of the family asserts his/her individualism, and tries to increase his/her own private ownership at the expense of the others.

The family father doesnt rent the bathroom to the highest bidder to maximize his personal gains, which then allows the highest bidder to assert his own rules and laws upon bathroom usage.

Children are not left hungry if they cannot pay for food. As a matter of fact, everyone inside the family get everything for free. They take according to their need. They give according to their ability. Children are not expected to repair the roof. Family grandfather is not expected to cut wood or work at 90 years of age.

In short, what you call a family is actually a communist commune in which the members use the common means (of production) which the family has, according to their need, and they give back to the commune according to their ability.

No one violates that. If someone violates this setup, s/he is at the minimum scolded, punished, and in extreme cases, outcast. No one can just raise his or her own flag and assert his/her rights over others.

The commune which you call family unit enforces its own way of life to every member. It is a communist unit. It has common ownership of means of production, everyone contributes to the commune according to their ability, take according to their need. It allows some degree of private, personal possessions.

Disagreeing with this would require changing the way your family works:

Consider children in debt from the moment they were conceived. Charge them market rates for the accrued debt. They should increasingly work and pay back whomever the top proprietor of the family is, from an early age. A family member who cannot pay for food, should go hungry. The family members can conduct their deeds in a totally free-market fashion, in which the top property owner can rent the family means to the highest-bidding family member, who then can use or rent the family means exclusively as his own property to maximize his profit. Naturally, the old, unable to work family members should be left to fend for themselves...

.......

Sounds outrageous and inconceivable... It sounds brutal.

Because it is...

And this is how the society is run today. A system of sociopathic self-interest maximization.

Basically, you wouldnt let even a tint of the external system you are praising and wanting to take even further, inside your family.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2018, 10:19 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-17-2018, 10:26 PM by unity100.)
#23
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(02-17-2018, 11:11 AM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  Oh one more thing:

Louisabell Wrote:Or maybe all people that are pro-Marxist will organise themselves, combine their efforts and create their own utopian society. Maybe with their combined financial and intellectual power they will accumulate vast strategic resources. Maybe in a free-market of ideas, where societies can be allowed to harmoniously compete with each-other, the kind of society you want will be so successful and endearing to others that you will have the greatest stretches of land, the greatest number of people, and the best technologies.

A few points:

1. Every time people have tried to do this--organize themselves within the existing system--the state and corporations and capitalists have conspired to break them by force. The labor movement of the 19th and 20th centuries is ample evidence of this, see the Ludlow Massacre for example. This is just one of the many ways the state subsidizes the rich and private property in the hands of an elite few.

Precisely. And the system, the established interest did rightfully so, because not breaking up any alternate system would damage their interests.

So much that in reality the entire capitalist system conceived during industrial revolution has been brought up by force, by forcibly breaking the old system and making people comply with the new:

https://www.filmsforaction.org/news/recovered-economic-history-everyone-but-an-idiot-knows-that-the-lower-classes-must-be-kept-poor-or-they-will-never-be-industrious/

Naturally so too - because villagers who are getting their food, manufacturing their own clothing, housing from common means of production (commons - forests, rivers, mountains, fisheries) are not going to buy manufactured shoes, clothes.

.........

Its no different today.

In some places like US, you can set up alternate systems due to laws that allow religious freedom and hence local communities to be set up. However if the alternate system you set up ever starts to catch on and you start to threaten the system, the system will prosecute and repress you as a threat to itself.

Actually no need to go that far.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

Merely protesting Wall Street was enough for FBI to even drop looking for missing children, and launch a massive effort to organize a nation-wide crackdown on Occupy protesters.

In this case, capitalism did not even tolerate the criticism. Leave aside any alternative coming into being.

..........

This constitutes a major problem for the upcoming positive societies. At any point they start to become prominent with their alternate way of living, the system will lash back.

This makes it considerably hard for us to find a budding positive society and live in it. Which is something i would like to do in my lifetime.

The system will not let a hippie commune growing bigger and bigger and threaten all the mechanisms of profit, property-accumulation and the control that brings into the hands of the few. It definitely wont allow it to even spread around as a philosophy that could threaten the conditioning system inflicts upon the society for conformance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

At this point, if any of you may get confused and think that 'private sector wouldnt do that':

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20741:Five-Corporations-Hire-Two-Intelligence-Firms-to-Spy-on-Activists

....................

I want to again emphasize, in the strongest possible way that, the biggest obstacle in front of the physical manifestation of the upcoming positive society is the current system that exists on this planet. A system which concentrates massive resources as private property in the hands of a minority few (elite) who then must reinforce the system upon everyone and prevent any alternative from coming to being in order to protect their power.

If any actual physical manifestation of early 4d positive society is desired to be seen in our lifetime, all spiritually awakened entities must ponder this issue and potential solutions.

But, it is also a relief that we, as a society, were able to come to this point in which we are able to confront this issue.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes unity100's post:
Infinite Unity
Yesterday, 12:32 AM,
#24
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
I updated the earlier post with some elaboration and some examples which seem fit for this topic:

https://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=15102&pid=240582#pid240582
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 10:12 AM,
#25
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Ok firstly I am not a pure anarchist, I just seem to be getting a lot of rebuttals as though I am. Also, I think a big issue we are having in our communication is that we're moving from theoretical to practical arguments when it suits us (yes, I am also guilty of this) but then our points are not being followed through at all.

For example, could someone please explain to me how it's at all realistic to expect a peaceful and legitimate communist state to flourish when you're also claiming that any attempts of people peacefully organising into their own voluntarily communes are sabotaged or broken up by force by bad elements on the planet? This is an honest question because I am genuinely perplexed by this seeming dissonance.

We all see real world cases where political systems that subsume individual property rights go very badly, actually it's caused some of the largest mass deaths, but somehow we believe we can protect ourselves from those very bad elements/elites (which I agree exist) moving forward? I mean at least when you own your property you can legally tell these people to get off your land. These are very real concerns I have.

Also Jeremy, I haven't defined what is personal versus private property versus what should be communal property versus what are strategic resources because I don't know the answer. I assume people will make well reasoned decisions about what these all are which is right for them. As for the "factory" example, well it depends how you structure your business, whether it's its own entity, a co-op, you're a sole-trader, etc. All these things are contractual in nature, I don't see why there needs be much change to how property ownership works now, except for patent law which is broken, to a lesser extent copyright law.

Also, I realise you're being a *little* loose with your definition of hierarchy, which is fine. In which case I agree with your assessment of how a negative versus positive hierarchy would work. However I think you are being a little hopeful by claiming that changing anything political will prevent people from grasping and climbing. People seem to be obsessed with status of any kind and I think it has more to do with sexual market value and humans being humans.

Also, why should market competition decide what system we live in? How about because it's better than force/violence. But I'm all ears if you have any practical suggestions for an alternative.

Unity100, lots of people have tried forking Bitcoin with very little success. No one person can change the protocol and it be universally accepted. You need community consensus.

Also I agree with how you described the family unit, also you provided a good explanation of Marxist ideology, but you missed my point, which was that we should strive/expect these things from our family and friends whom we trust and love, not from a state filled with people who have malevolent intentions.

Sorry I can't respond to any direct quotes as I'm on a phone, but if I can get an answer to my first question at least I can reassess how to proceed forward.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 03:41 PM,
#26
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(Yesterday, 10:12 AM)Louisabell Wrote:  For example, could someone please explain to me how it's at all realistic to expect a peaceful and legitimate communist state to flourish when you're also claiming that any attempts of people peacefully organising into their own voluntarily communes are sabotaged or broken up by force by bad elements on the planet? This is an honest question because I am genuinely perplexed by this seeming dissonance.

Very valid question. Not only important but also has historical significance. Indeed, as mentioned before in the thread, any kind of peaceful, loosely-organized collective have been broken up as such by centralized hierarchical power-concentrating forces. From agricultural revolution to early spanish civil war, to early russian revolution.

Similarly as mentioned, today's hierarchical, negative system wont also tolerate any such collective growing in its midst. As cointelpro shows.

That is why people tend to foresee that even in such a society, some central structure, a backbone will be needed to provide for strategic resources and services which are the backbone of the society. Like mining resources acquisition and distribution, water, staple foodstuffs, transportation infrastructure, communication infrastructure, education, healthcare, arbitration (justice) and even more importantly, defense.

As frequency rises, these would be increasingly organized by the newly forming smc of the society, but in early stages, inevitably some structure will be necessary.

For example most of the services and fundamentals we take for granted today cant exist without such centralized organization and planning. Even things like internet, road network, rail network, shipping. These are complex systems that need continuous management and organization.

This may be because we are rather highly advanced in technology and depend on it for survival. It may be less a need in a normal positive 3d society which has evolved normally without disruptions and interruptions this society experienced. And the exceedingly advanced technology it was given. But even in such a pastoral, idyllic society, there would be those who would be organizing the society for certain needs. Even if these are wandering sages, poets, bards, or administrators. 3d is a social density.

The best way to undertake such organization for a society like this or similar ones, would be to create systems of administration which would administer these resources via democratic principles. Ie, basically a socialized, socialist backbone for the society, onto which every collective can safely establish themselves.

That's no different than a biological entity which has a skeleton and central nervous system.

In this format, while the central backbone of the society manages and provides things and services which require massive collective effort, the collectives themselves can arrange what stuff they can manage and use themselves.

Quote:We all see real world cases where political systems that subsume individual property rights go very badly, actually it's caused some of the largest mass deaths

Actually, that's 60 years' of cold war propaganda, not unlike the nonexistent iraqi weapons of mass destruction which would become a 'fact' just like the others in 20-30 years if it wasnt for internet, and when one digs the actual reality things come out quite different, however thats another long historical topic which is too large for the scope of this one.

However for this point, one thing needs to be said - the 'private property' system killed an uncountable number of people, for profit:

https://fbreporter.org/2015/07/07/genocide-the-british-dont-want-you-to-know-about-they-systematically-starved-to-death-over-60-millions-of-eastern-indians/

Quote:By the time the great famine of 1876 arrived, Britain had already built some railroads in India. The railroads, which were touted as institutional safeguards against famines, were instead used by merchants to ship grain inventories from outlying drought-stricken districts to central depots for hoarding. In addition, free traders’ opposition to price control ushered in a frenzy of grain speculation. As a result, capital was raised to import grains from drought-stricken areas, and further the calamity. The rise of price of grain was spectacularly rapid, and grain was taken from where it was most needed, to be stored in warehouses until the prices rose even higher.

All within free market, and all for free trade. Exactly like how British traders were selling opium to China and causing ~30 million/year to die, towards the end of 19th century. The defense of this was 'free trade'.

Leaving that aside, even today, what do you think happens, when someone needing healthcare doesnt have the insurance to pay for it in today's USA...

Quote:but somehow we believe we can protect ourselves from those very bad elements/elites (which I agree exist) moving forward? I mean at least when you own your property you can legally tell these people to get off your land. These are very real concerns I have.

That's a misconception.

You can legally tell 'those people' to get off your land today because there exists a socialized state in which you have a right in, and that socialized state provides laws that make you and them equal, and it enforces its laws through the socialized judiciary it provides.

If there wasnt such a socialized state, it would be like how it was in 1000 AD - you just couldnt tell the bigger property holder which 'came to your land' because he would have the bigger coffer to field more people. So you and your family would just be beholden to his private tyranny, just like how feudal serfdom was...

Even today, bigger coffers mean bigger legal power - especially in places like US. So, even today, thanks to capitalism causing wealth concentration and that leading to subversion of democracy and even justice, you just cant 'tell off' 'them' when they come to their property. They have the bigger coffer, and in a lawsuit in which you cant even last a few months, they would eventually at least bankrupt you and force you to their will, even if they cant win the original lawsuit.

That is one of the reasons why many social-ized systems prevent or limit non personal property accumulation. Owning one's own house and small farm is not a problem, however when one owns 150th biggest economy in the world (Walmart), or controlling share of major energy companies, that is not a personal ownership anymore and the owner is not a private proprietor - he is a feudal lord. The only thing in between such wealthy from establishing their direct rule by raising their private army is the socialized state with its socialized army, judiciary and police. And that's why such concentrated wealth hates the 'state' so much - it limits their power.

Quote:However I think you are being a little hopeful by claiming that changing anything political will prevent people from grasping and climbing. People seem to be obsessed with status of any kind and I think it has more to do with sexual market value and humans being humans.[.quote]

Of course, in every given environment there will be those who want to get into positions of power and then abuse these.

The catch is limiting that and the abuse it brings. That's why socialized methods of governance of politics were adopted to end the era of kings and dukes. Because it gives equal power to everyone and limits the power which one can have. But ironically, we did not adopt a socialized method of governing the economy, and the result has been feudalism being set up through private economic power. Its not the american electorate calling the shots today - its those who can afford to splurge millions of dollars on lobbyists, fund candidates, and brainwash entire populations through their privately owned media...

When you limit private ownership, for example, Rupert Murdoch cannot own an entire country's worth of media outlets and while using them to push what he wants, bluntly say 'I dont like Eu because they dont do what i say. When i tell something to Westminster, they do what i say' and conduct a propaganda to fool an entire nation into breaking up with European Union, for example.

In a socialized system he could at most expect to become the executive of one media outlet, and then try to push his personal opinions through the managing power of the executive - which would again be limited by the rules which that media cooperative democratically set within itself.

But currently, he owns entire nations' worth of media in numerous countries and just uses them how he wants. There is no control or check on what he does. Write something he doesnt agree, youre fired. Actually, if you were someone who would do something like that, you wouldnt be hired in the first place anyway, but eh...

[quote]
Unity100, lots of people have tried forking Bitcoin with very little success. No one person can change the protocol and it be universally accepted. You need community consensus.

There are 2 major other coin alternatives, one is litecoin, and the other is ethereum. There are numerous upcoming ones.

That aside, nothing the project management does requires community consensus. They can just change the software clients which you use to run the network tomorrow, and everyone would have to either oblige, or take a hike. Or fork, and just fragment and invalidate the entire network.

Quote:Also I agree with how you described the family unit, also you provided a good explanation of Marxist ideology, but you missed my point, which was that we should strive/expect these things from our family and friends whom we trust and love, not from a state filled with people who have malevolent intentions.

People in US are this much conditioned against 'the state' only because of conditioning that they are subjected to from birth. Such an obsession does not exist elsewhere in the world.

A state is simply the people. Just like that family unit is in itself a state, which creates and enforces its own rules. All that matters is whether you are able to join the decision making process in that state.

That aside, the objective of 4d positive environment is to make one giant, planet-wide family. That cant happen while people stick to their small family units and see the others as outsiders needing to be separated. Rules of wisdom to ensure own safety would apply, however the principle would still remain valid.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 05:21 PM, (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 07:26 PM by Louisabell.)
#27
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Unity100, if you care to elaborate on how this "backbone" would function, then I'd be interested, but as for the rest of your post we disagree on such fundamental facts that I don't see any point in discussing any further.

I am not just a Libertarian because it's cute. I actually believe that this system can work. Outside our respective echo-chambers you can't just take conclusions derived from Marxist ideology and use them to state that any Libertarian society would automatically descend into a lawless state where you engage in shoot-outs every other week to protect your property.

I might as well tell you to take your breadlines and gulags and shove it. Honestly it's equivilant in outrageous mischaractisations of the other side's political beliefs. If you want to actually engage the other side then you have to argue from first principles. I mean you have to understand that saying that communist state abuses, including Mao, North Korea, heck even the state of Venezuela today, can be explained away by "cold war propaganda", is totally ludicrous to a Libertarian. It actually makes me physically sick.

Also, I don't understand your position on cryptocurrencies at all. Do you understand how blockchain works? Clients to store coins are usually open source, and there's many of them. A lot of exchanges haven't even adopted Segwit yet. I've been involved in the Bitcoin community for a while. This is something I am well versed in. I mean people still trade Ethereum Classic, and that community had very good consensus with its fork. This makes me really question where you get your information from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 07:36 PM, (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 08:18 PM by unity100.)
#28
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(Yesterday, 05:21 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  Unity100, if you care to elaborate on how this "backbone" would function, than I'd be interested,

Various strategic services are already run by states which are elected democratically, obeying rules made by democratically elected representatives. All that is needed is to make it more horizontal.

Growing up and living in US easily skews one's perception of the state concept. Not only because of the conditioning the economic system administers to people - but also state in US had long time ago been usurped by minority private interests and serves them and them only.

Quote:I am not just a Libertarian because it's cute. I actually believe that this system can work. Outside our respective echo-chambers you can't just take conclusions derived from Marxist ideology and use them to state that any Libertarian society would automatically descend into a lawless state where you engage in shoot-outs every other week to protect your property.

The conclusions were derived from actual history. Periods were named even. Its not concluded that a libertarian environment will descend into a lawless state speedily and then the bigger private proprietors will enforce their feudal domains on everyone, not because of theorizing, because that is exactly what happened in such environments in history.

Quote:I might as well tell you to take your breadlines and gulags and shove it.

Then it would be a grand display of a majestic lack of history, using an alt-right talking point stemming from propaganda against a particular state-capitalist, not communist or socialist state in history. In addition to how successful the propaganda machine in the west which just 'shapes' citizens to obey its own mold, is.

Quote:If you want to actually engage the other side then you have to argue from first principles. I mean you have to understand that saying that communist state abuses, including Mao, North Korea, heck even the state of Venezuela today, can be explained away by "cold war propaganda", is totally ludicrous to a Libertarian.

It is ridiculous because generally they either dont know political theory, or history:

China (Mao): State Capitalism
North Korea : State Capitalism

Venezuela: The poor country with the biggest oil reserves in the world which attempted to try social democracy like nordic countries, on top of that had committed the error of nationalizing their oil and depriving Exxon of the profits - ending them in the 'National Security' threat list and triggering immense amount of economic and clandestine warfare. Not unlike how Chile's economy was sunk by the $10 million funds allocated to CIA by Nixon, in his now famous memo. Right before they organized a coup there.

Incredibly, the unbelievably irreverent propaganda machine describes what is happening in Venezuela as a 'failure of socialism' to a gullible audience. Yet the same methodology the consecutive Venezuelan governments tried to implement at the start, are in place since a long time ago in countries like Norway. Including state-ownership of oil resources, leaving aside massive, larger-than life social programs and high taxation. Except they are not descending into scarcity. Maybe there is something missing in their social democracy. And that is very possibly the economic warfare...

So much that there is scarcity of toilet paper in Venezuela, and basic foodstuffs, despite all the funds the government is pouring into providing them for everyone. One wonders why...

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Venezuelas-Economic-War-Tons-of-Food-Found-Buried-Underground-20150817-0024.html

From Chile coup, we know that $10 million in 1970 dollars were more than enough to scuttle a country's entire economy, to the point of secret services being able to organize truckers to strike by paying them money, and even paying them to burn their trucks in protest of 'socialism' (social democracy in that case).

Socialism, communism etc always fail. But for some reason, they always need economic warfare and clandestine operations to fail. They just cant fail on their own.

........

Such propaganda catchphrases are long-standing, long-perfected talking points which are targeted to grab the listener from emotional talking points like 'they killed people', 'they starved people'.

However never gets mentioned facts like US inflicting a global blockade for grain against China via UN at the time when China was having their famine. What was the reason for that. Not minerals, not uranium, not silicon, not anything else - particularly grain, during a famine. Same goes for 'Holodomor', in which, this time, then-leader-of-the-'free'-world Britain inflicted an embargo on USSR which forced them to export only grain in order to be able to buy machinery. Despite USSR had mountains of gold, and Britain needed that gold immensely due to effects of Great Depression to bump up liquidity in the economy to kickstart the economy... But for some reason, British parliament just decides to inflict a blockade against USSR which will make the famine much worse...

And after that, these are used as propaganda pieces, even if these countries did everything in their power to remedy these situations, including implementing rationing across entire country to help the regions with famine. It is their fault that they had famine, it is their fault that they 'just' had blockades against them to make them starve.

But, in contrast, for example Hoover administration stubbornly refusing to intervene in 'the market' to remedy the effects of Great Depression, causing deaths of many due to malnutrition, sickness, lack of healthcare, on roadside hobo camps on the way to California to find a means to survive, begging door to door 'brother can you spare a dime', is NOT capitalism. Its just 'the way things are', 'the way of life', 'a tragedy'. Despite millions died due to these circumstances which the establishment had every means to be able to address, including mountains of wealth.

As a statistical note, if the method which the military-industry complex publications and think-thanks in angloamerican west use to determine such 'deaths from communism' in other countries, are applied to Great Depression USA, it comes out that around 7 million people died during Great Depression.

However that's inconceivable - how can the same 'objective' methods that are used to determine how many people 'communism' killed can be applied to US!!!

Possibly because US is 'exceptional'. That is, if you dont have enough knowledge of the science of statistics. Or, gullible enough to buy what is being sold.

During the time i wrote these lines, many people in US died due to no being able to get healthcare, because they didnt have money. They died, because the profits of the shareholders of healthcare corporations needed to be maximized. They could have lived, by these people accepting to profit a little less in this financial quarter. But no, those people had to die because these gentlemen have the 'right' to extract maximum profit from their private properties, even at the cost of lives of many people.

And this doesnt count in the people who just die from 'natural' causes due to malnutrition, overwork, lack of housing, unsanitary conditions and all that the system of profit maximization enforces on the majority.

None of this is capitalism's fault. Its just 'the way things are'. Whatever happens in the opposing ideology, is their fault. Even if they do everything to remedy the problem.

Quote:Also, I don't understand your position on cryptocurrencies at all. Do you understand how blockchain works? Clients to store coins are usually open source, and there's many of them. A lot of exchanges haven't even adopted Segwit yet. I've been involved in the Bitcoin community for a while. This is something I am well versed in. I mean people still trade Ethereum Classic, and that community had very good consensus with its fork. This makes me really question where you get your information from.

I know how cryptocurrencies work, on top of that i also know the world of open source and how open source works. That's the knowledge which you seem to be lacking in order to evaluate this topic:

An open source project is just a bunch of people working together to create a piece of software, with contributions from external contributors. Regardless of the anarchic and participatory nature, an open source project is still managed by a small team, on top of which there is a project leader, which generally end up to be the owner. Even if there is a foundation as owner, its still up to people who are running that foundation.

The people change, the project also changes. The people themselves can change their minds. They can go bankrupt, or be bought (if applicable). The new management can decide to take a different course.They can just receive a national security letter, with an accompanying gag order, and just end up having to do whatever they are told.

And the moment they change how that software client works, your entire blockchain also changes in the way it works.

At this point anyone who doesnt like how the project now works can just fork the project, but then fragmentation occurs. In something like cryptocurrencies, that would kill the usefulness and value of the cryptocurrency. A dozen bitcoin forks popping up and original bitcoin being turned into something which doesnt agree with the initial principles, would be like US dollar being abolished and every state issuing their own dollar, leading to many worthless or semi-worthless currencies circulating.

And every single of those open source project managed currencies would still be subject to the same potential risk as described above.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 09:38 PM,
#29
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
Can I post these on my blog for my http://www.thewarlockname.com site? I have a tag for spiritual content.

There is an anthro somewhere who needs me and I need them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes IndigoGeminiWolf's post:
rva_jeremy
Yesterday, 09:38 PM, (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 10:17 PM by Louisabell.)
#30
RE: John Petersen Interview: Jim McCarty Nov 18, 2017
(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)unity100 Wrote:  Various strategic services are already run by states which are elected democratically, obeying rules made by democratically elected representatives. All that is needed is to make it more horizontal.

Make it more horizontal? That's a little lacking in an explanation don't you think?

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)unity100 Wrote:  The conclusions were derived from actual history. Periods were named even. Its not concluded that a libertarian environment will descend into a lawless state speedily and then the bigger private proprietors will enforce their feudal domains on everyone, not because of theorizing, because that is exactly what happened in such environments in history.

Sorry, what country had a perfect libertarian state ever in history? That's a little unfair that any system that has any sort of private ownership gets lumped into what my political beliefs are, but you get to discount all communist states as "not real communism".

Quote:I might as well tell you to take your breadlines and gulags and shove it.

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)unity100 Wrote:  Then it would be a grand display of a majestic lack of history.

Why, you're not actually claiming those things never existed? Oh, that's right, not real communism.

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)unity100 Wrote:  China (Mao): State Capitalism
North Korea : State Capitalism

They sure didn't get sold like that to the people. And everything else you describe are all crimes committed by states with bloated powers, engaged in illegal wars that are not approved by congress. I don't know why you're arguing as though I am a neo-con. In-fact you're proving my point that a perfect communist state can never exist in the world right now, it's too easily undermined and sabotaged. Scary stuff.

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)unity100 Wrote:  And the moment they change how that software client works, your entire blockchain also changes in the way it works.

You do realise that you can print out your coins on paper and store it that way? I was talking about open-source wallets that store coins. And no, you can't change the way a blockchain works, once it's unleashed into the internet ether it has a life of its own. It's called de-centralised for a reason.

I think you're getting confused with arguments based on the investment value of cryptocurrencies and the potential for forked cryptos to compete for market cap. These arguments are from people who just want to make a quick buck in the space.

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)unity100 Wrote:  ... just receive a national security letter, with an accompanying gag order, and just end up having to do whatever they are told.

Yeah, doesn't state power suck? Just when you think you're getting ahead... out come the gag orders.

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)unity100 Wrote:  A dozen bitcoin forks popping up and original bitcoin being turned into something which doesn't agree with the initial principles, would be like US dollar being abolished and every state issuing their own dollar, leading to many worthless or semi-worthless currencies circulating.

This literally has already happened. A fork can't change what the 'original' Bitcoin is because a fork is just a new cryptocurrency which uses the original ledger of Bitcoin, so that anyone that had a Bitcoin at the time of the fork also now has a coin in the newly created crypto. That's it. It's just a gimmick, its really not a big deal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)