Jump to content
TruthLoveEnergy

The Future of Politics, Anarchy, and the Infinite Soul


Hunter
 Share

Recommended Posts

As far as politics goes, as soon as I could rationalize, I've considered myself an Anarchist. Since middle school probably. Though I didn't really understand what it meant back then. I do now, and for the longest time I considered it just an ideal. Like yeah, in Utopia anarchy will just come natural... but only in Utopia. I'm not so sure about all that now.

Just so I'm clear Anarchy literally means "no ruler." That's it. But there is more to it obviously. An Anarchist is as far left as you can get, but doesn't recognize leadership or hierarchy unless it proves itself absolutely necessary and useful. A good example would be a hospital or an architectural firm. The difference here is someone IS an authority rather than possessing authority. The architect needs to approve the final design.

There's a lot of talk about the resource based economy it seems we may be leading towards... that sounds like an Anarchist workforce to me. Because by default Anarchism comes with it a certain degree of Socialism, and a socialized work force values the cost of labor based on the value it provides to people. For example, everyone has free access to food, water, housing, schooling and all the basic needs of life. Participation will be voluntary. Everyone lives if they want. But you want a new fancy hat? It'll cost ya. The new Playstation 17 when it comes out? That'll probably cost ya too. You follow me? There can be no capital in an Anarchist society. Our economy would be based on resources not commodities. Profit wouldn't exist.

Really, just given the state of the environment and global politics it's hard for me to not believe we need very radical change on a worldwide scale. Something so radical as banishing the idea of rulers and hierarchies. It seems like a total necessity. There will always be oppression as long as one or few are at the top... and there shouldn't even be a top to begin with. Capitalism is killing us. It is killing the world, not so slowly anymore. But what can we do? And I dont know the answer to that.

Capitalism has this "play or die" rule we dont talk about. If you dont or cant participate you become marginalized at the least and killed at the worst. And lord forbid you try and make a Non-capitalist society, they just get crushed on purpose. What are we to do? So many, even many on the left of politics, believe in Capitalism, a hierarchy. Like it's the only path to true freedom or some shit... it's just the opposite! How do we break the game that's designed to break us? How do we bust the cycle that's intended to perpetuate and consume indefinitely?

Part of me wonders if the IS will bring any of these ideas to the mainstream. Anarchy seems perfectly aligned to the Michael Teachings and one could argue the MTs are an Anarchist Teaching. It's obvious change is needed, but what will it look like? A consensus based democracy with a horizontal citizen led power structure would be a start. Who knows? I personally feel like a successful resource based economy would have to be Anarchic in nature and practice. What are your thoughts? And what could an individual do to bring change?




 

Edited by Hunter
  • LIKE/LOVE 24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an anarchist too. RBE is essentially what has been called "common ownership of the means of production" in anarchist thought. 

 

I do think we need revolution (reformism from within existing mechanisms of power won't cut it), but I don't think that revolution will necessarily look the way we might imagine. While there may inevitably be some violence involved, I don't think this is going to be a case of "anarchists band together, fight a war against governments and corporations, and win." I think it will be a much more organic, decentralized, and long-term process of people just refusing to play the game anymore, and working out new ways to support themselves and each other.

Edited by Sam K
  • LIKE/LOVE 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sam K I tend to agree with you. I think it might be possible for certain types of legislation to lay the groundwork. I'm thinking how we elect officials to be one example of reforms in the current paradigm that could help. But the systems as it stands, no matter how much reformation, won't and can't get the job done alone. I think most people will and can agree with Anarchist ideals, but, that's a big BUT, many if not most feel helpless withing the current system. There is no escape because there is no other way. How can we make these ideals less ideal and more practical? All it will take is enough people to get in board and the rest will fall into place.

 

I think the internet age will help with this, at least the spreading of ideas. The right does it so well, the far left needs to get in on that shit too. And like you said, some violence will be inevitable, but no Anarchist I know of really wants bloodshed. But in the end it's a scale. Which weighs more, the sanctioned violence of the state or the violence of those defending themselves against said state.

 

I fully expect the organic growth as you describe, but what I want to know is how can we speed that up. What kind of fertilizer can we fold into the soil, so to speak.

  • LIKE/LOVE 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to work, I cannot comment as much in depth as Id like, but what you wrote reminded me of this transcript:

 

I also recall Michael saying that "mutual aid" is the core of a resource-based economy. You could look into that.

 

Another very cool movement that might be of interest is SOLARPUNK, which emphasizes Social Anarchism in politics, as well as renewable energy, multiculturalism and optimism.

Here is the TV Tropes page for that.

And here is the subreddit where ordinary people explore Solarpunk.

One more page that explores the practical side of Solarpunk.

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 13
  • THANK YOU! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very frustrated by the hierarchies in the scenario that you have one person in charge and in many cases that person's "vision" and voice is the only one that counts. In that scenario, the insight and experience of the workers and/or community has little in the way of relevance. That is not always the case because sometimes you do get a good leader who does realize that he/she/they do not know everything and that there is benefit to taking into account the insight of everyone involved. In my experience, that seems to be more of rarity.

 

I would like to see a shift towards smaller and greater community driven discussions where collectively everyone has a voice to determine what is in the best interest of all, not just the one person higher up the chain.

 

I would like to see more discussions over whether or not a new idea or vision should be brought into reality. Not every new idea or vision is going to be in the best interest of the community, people, other life, our world and our future together. Humanity is heavily intellectually focused. New ideas have to be brought into existence because one person demands it without any form of checks and balances, or a quorum in place to determine if what is being brought into existence is healthy for all. Ideally, there would be a shift away from the hierarchies in place now to collective discussion.

  • LIKE/LOVE 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by revolution?  

What do you mean by speed it up? 

In Capitalism, revolution has meant the violent overthrow of a ruling class.  This often results in vengeance killings, destruction of infrastructure, supply chain destruction, and very often the people who take control are more interested in the collection of power than sticking to the ideals that brought them to power.  See Lenin.  

Accelerationists exist.   To give you an idea, many of these people open advocated either not voting in last election or voting for Trump.  The unironic logic was a second Trump term would accelerate the destruction of the current hierarchies and allow us to rebuild from the ashes.  

 

We have done that before.  We nearly ended our species. 

 

Having listened to the Conquest of Bread on Audible, there are several things that come to mind.  

 

For an revolution to succeed, there must be a ground work laid at the beginning.  Kropotkin talked about the Paris Commune.   He stated that Paris could feed the whole population if everyone worked just a few hours a week on food production.  There were enough greenhouses at the time to grow food. There were enough bakers to bake bread.  They just need to work better.   Had the commune built the parallel power structure they would have had a better chance of at least not starving. 

So, if you want something to do to bring down capitalism.  Plant a community garden.  Talk to your neighbors find out who has what skills and who needs help. This is the beginning of mutual aid. It could even be as simple as finding out that someone needs laundry soap and doesn't get paid for a week and perhaps you have an extra bottle or have the means to get one for them. 

 

This revolution is happening from the ground up. There is no Lenin or Mao or Che.  It is happening by people banding together in their communities. 

 

Michael has already stated that any system can become exploitative.  While on this site, we generally have a very positive view of RBE and an end to capitalism, somethings need to be kept in mind. 

Fresco talks often about using technology to meet the needs of the people.  He often mentions have a class technical people who's job is to meet the needs of everyone with automation and technology.  Obviously, this could be twisted into something very dark.  Just real Wool by Hugh Howley on a Sci-Fi example of how that could turn out. 

It seems to me that the ideas of Fresco, Marx, Goldman, and Kropotkin each have a piece of the puzzle.  The quickest way to speed it up is to build networks locally. Continue pushing at the local level.  Every leftist who isn't on the accelerationist path talks about building at the local level.   That is the level you can have the biggest impact. 

 

 

Youtubeer who talk about this and what you can do.  Beau of the Fifth Column, Non-Compete, and Re-Education.  It has proven very enlightening.  

  • LIKE/LOVE 13
  • THANK YOU! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Christian A revolution of thought...

 

I can only see this happening naturally, and from the ground up like you mention. I can really only speak about my locality and peers when I say this, but I see a ton of apathy around me. All the people I know and love resent capitalism in some way, but all who I speak with dont see any other way... there is NO alternative in their eyes. And I suppose "speeding" the thought revolution up would entail helping people realize there is an alternative... many actually. How did we live before the last 300 years of capitalism? A million ways and not one involved compounding interest or any of that bullshit.

 

I dont think I identify as an Accelerationist. Seems too radical.

 

There are things I want to do locally, I have a friend with a degree in permaculture and she works with a lot of local organic farmers to put on a "farmer's market" in the parking lot of her shop. I think she would help me with a community garden of some sort.

 

I'm going to look up those channels on YouTube. I feel like I need more frame of reference because I'm coming at this very naive.

  • LIKE/LOVE 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hunter

I feel you on the locale.

 

I have posted on Facebook before about my neighborhood. It overwhelmingly went for Trump both times.

 

I have no sidewalks in my neighborhood.  People get super pissy if you step out of the road to avoid a car and are on 'their property' for a few seconds. Those racist blue line flags are all over the place. So pretty sure just walking up like and asking if they'd like to hear about our lord and savior Karl is a bad idea.

 

So.  Help when I can.  Be a good neighbor. Stay friendly when I would rather tell them off.  Part of the working on thw house we are doing is involving putting in a huge garden, which we can them share around.

 

So places are going to be more difficult than others.

 

It ia possible.

  • LIKE/LOVE 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a big step toward compassionate overhaul is trust. Many people are fed up with capitalism, but they don't trust their fellow humans to participate honestly in a different system. Part of that wariness is because of previous experiences where fascism used a cloak of socialism to gain a foothold, or where anarchists used violence to try to overhaul a system; another is because they're operating on an understanding of human psychology that's arisen out of capitalist hierarchical teaching and experience, and not an actual snapshot of who we are as a species on a base level.

 

I find this question comes up a lot when I float the idea of a resource-based economy for my friends and family to consider. "But people would cheat the system." "But where's the incentive to participate?" They like to quote what happened to the hippie commune Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco, invaded by bad faith actors and ultimately dissolved. That may be a great example of why such a substantial change has to be done incrementally in order to truly anchor itself as a new paradigm, but it's not a reason not to do it.

 

I agree with Christian that it starts with normalizing kindness and compassion as our baseline human instinct, and providing more examples of the new system working for the doubters (like the Venus Project). The more we begin to trust each other, the easier it will be to overhaul a system reliant on a few chosen people into a system reliant on all. The only way a system like an anarchist RBE will work is if everyone wants to participate in it.

Edited by Becca the Student
  • LIKE/LOVE 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A world with no leadership is not possible. Even within a lateral political structure there will be leadership and/or representatives. It may be that instead of one ruler there would be a council of representatives. In a world with billions of people at the very least there needs to be someone or some group of people to arbitrate disputes - those will never go away. It may be that disputes don't lead to wars but lack of production. Meaning things that projects that need to get done just don't get done because people are at impasses. Someone or some group will need to organize people when it's time to start a project that benefits the whole community. There will need to be some organization to even agree that a whole community is having a problem that requires a solution. This would have to exist from the level of a neighborhood to the level of a whole geographic region. 

 

In fact the need for a ruler in the first place was because of a need to arbitrate disputes. I can't remember which words in the english language have that etymology (or the episode of the history of english language podcast that talks about this) but I remember something about tracing the root of some words related to leadership that go back to the main proto-indoeuropean language and thinking that it was interesting that humans were forming basic political structures that far back because we're a species full of assholes. Not having a leader of some kind will lead to problems.  And there are people who are naturally inclined towards leadership and/or there's that person who people end up looking towards when there are problems. And there are people who want nothing to do with the responsibilities that involve the welfare of the group. In other words, there will be leaders and followers. 

 

And while there may not be economic hierarchies, there will still be social hierarchies. It might not be a caste system, but it will be some system of power. It might not look like what exists now but it will exist. Someone(s) have to be in charge and someone(s) have to agree that said person(s) are in charge. If material goods are not what establishes social hierarchies it will be something else. Maybe it could be based on how social you are or how many projects you contribute to or how many children you have or don't have or how many languages you speak. It could be anything. There will always be alphas and omegas. 

 

Can you tell i'm not an anarchist or an idealist? LOL I don't think anarchy is practical or helpful. It would lead to more problems. Things won't just work themselves out and people won't always just do what's right. There are always going to be selfish assholes. I think if anarchy is going to work it would only work if everyone is the same. The society would have to be super homogenous. And I mean like everyone looks the same, speaks the same language, has the same level of health at the same time, is the same height, weight, level of wealth, education, eats the same exact foods...everything. And privacy wouldn't exist either. It wouldn't be needed. I guess the closest thing to an anarchist society would be one that existed in a hive type collective but without a queen.

 

Also, wouldn't the right version of an anarchist be a libertarian? 

  • LIKE/LOVE 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Michael Speaks: June 2008] Excerpts:

 

Old Soul politics return to a state of no politics, but more of what might be considered Anarchy. We use the word "anarchy" in its true definition, not as the Young or Mature soul might exploit the term. The anarchy usually takes on a form that would be recognized as Tribalism.

 

From what we can see of other populations dominated by Old Soul Ages and paradigms, there are no governments that you would recognize beyond being more tribal groups in communication and exchange with one another, but with no discernible leader or authority.

 

This is one of the reasons our teaching is particularly attractive to the older soul, since there is no discernible authority beyond the self, and even the sense of self is held in question to a degree that allows for sensitive consideration of all factors involved in the life.

 

The Infant Soul uses Freedom; the Baby Soul uses Authority; the Young Soul uses Capital; the Mature Soul uses Well-Being; and the Old Soul uses Communication at the root of their politics.

 

It could be said then that the politics of the Old Soul are CONTEXTUAL. Certain politics apply within specific instances, but are not seen as appropriate across the board. And each person determines his or her level of compliance within certain contexts, or freely moves to more appropriate contexts.

 

There will come a time, with no discernible leader or authority. Old Souls, if manifested as such, me thinks, just naturally yearn for what Michael describes as Anarchy.

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Becca the Student said:

find this question comes up a lot when I float the idea of a resource-based economy for my friends and family to consider. "But people would cheat the system." "But where's the incentive to participate?" They like to quote what happened to the hippie commune Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco, invaded by bad faith actors and ultimately dissolved. That may be a great example of why such a substantial change has to be done incrementally in order to truly anchor itself as a new paradigm, but it's not a reason not to do it.

 

Haight-ashbury is a great example.

 

I read a piece in the Atlantic by a guy who was there. The bad faith actors were rich Suburbanite kids who hated their parents and probably never worked in their lives. They took advantage and didn't contribute to an already fragile system of free clinics and subsidized rent.

 

A better example was what the Chicago Black Panthers under Fred Hampton were doing. Organizing, free breakfast for kids, free clinics for people that lived in the area, peace treaties with the gangs, cop watch patrols to keep the CPD in line, etc. The panthers still had a hierarchy.

 

And when Hampton was executed it dissolved in a few years.

 

That however is the reason for leaderless power.  Anarchists as mentioned above, will have leaders in situations that warrent it.  Military is an example.  Doctors in surgery. Crisis response.  The difference is all of the leaders are subject to recall at any time by a majority vote.  

 

Doc kills to many patients or is harassing staff....he is voted out or other means such as a strike against working with them.

 

So there would be leaders.  But leaders would be limited on how much they can speak for someone else.

 

That is why I advocate for many people doing many things locally to.  Enough spheres of local organization can effect a city or county...then a State...then the state and all of it can happen so that when capitalism dies....it is like the last roman emporer being told to get off the throne.

 

This is a deliberate reference.  

 

Life doesn't stop because things end.

 

Capitalism ia dying.

 

So did rome.

 

But aa Rome died life continued on.  People thrived. Local people rose to power ans secured areas for the rest based on the model of Rome.

 

This eventually led to the Feudal System.

 

All we are changing here is adding radical democracy. Everything is up to a vote so that all voices are heard.

 

It will take time.

 

It will happen.

 

 

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 10
  • THANK YOU! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@ckaricai I definitely see your points and just like any other political lens Anachism is just as multifaceted and diverse. There are many schools of Anarchist thought. 

 

And I tend to avoid the word "Libertarian" because it's been hijacked by conservatives in the US. "Libertarian" used to apply to the left in my understanding. 

 

There will always be power systems, either natural or manufactured. The point of Anarchy, in my opinion, isnt to remove these natural systems or change human nature but to at the very least not have a system in place that is literally designed to oppress. There will be problems, there will be anti-social behaviors we must cope with, crime will not disappear... how we deal with it all needs to change though. Maybe the solution isnt "pure Anarchy," like others have mentioned, leadership wont go away but how leaders are chosen will have to change. I definitely dont know the best way to do that either. I just see the need for change.

Edited by Hunter
  • LIKE/LOVE 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree there will always be leaders and followers but I don't agree that then translates into leaders having power. If we agree as humans that we need people to lead or settle disputes, etc., fine but we don't need to make that person or persons special because they have that role.

 

When everyone participates and is able to lend their own natural skills and talents, then being a leader is a role just like being a care giver or lifeguard or chef. There is no need to elevate any person. It's just like with our essence roles, no one is better than another but they all work together.

  • LIKE/LOVE 16
  • THANK YOU! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This series of videos gives an excellent rundown of how an anarchist society would work. Obviously, it's not definitive; there's a range of opinions on specifics, but this is a good starting point for understanding the practical implementation of anarchism.

 

Anarchism is novel, in the sense that's it's never been attempted on the scale of a major nation.  I do not, however, think that it's some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. It can be done.

  • LIKE/LOVE 6
  • THANK YOU! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Moonfeather said:

I do agree there will always be leaders and followers but I don't agree that then translates into leaders having power. If we agree as humans that we need people to lead or settle disputes, etc., fine but we don't need to make that person or persons special because they have that role.

 

When everyone participates and is able to lend their own natural skills and talents, then being a leader is a role just like being a care giver or lifeguard or chef. There is no need to elevate any person. It's just like with our essence roles, no one is better than another but they all work together.

If you are in a position of leadership you automatically have power. Your boss, your teacher, your union rep, your doctor, anyone in a position of authority has power over you. And they maintain that power until people decide they can no longer have it. Meaning, if I decide to tell a teacher, boss, or doctor to fuck off and I stop listening to them, they no longer have power. (this is assuming power isn't taken by force) Power dynamics are everywhere. Saying everyone is equal is a power dynamic too. Even if everyone works together someone needs to coordinate activities so folks aren't stepping on each other's toes or dropping balls and so that things happen when they should and to keep the activity going till the end. 

 

 

On 4/19/2021 at 4:49 PM, Hunter said:

@ckaricai I definitely see your points and just like any other political lens Anachism is just as multifaceted and diverse. There are many schools of Anarchist thought. 

 

And I tend to avoid the word "Libertarian" because it's been hijacked by conservatives in the US. "Libertarian" used to apply to the left in my understanding. 

 

There will always be power systems, either natural or manufactured. The point of Anarchy, in my opinion, isnt to remove these natural systems or change human nature but to at the very least not have a system in place that is literally designed to oppress. There will be problems, there will be anti-social behaviors we must cope with, crime will not disappear... how we deal with it all needs to change though. Maybe the solution isnt "pure Anarchy," like others have mentioned, leadership wont go away but how leaders are chosen will have to change. I definitely dont know the best way to do that either. I just see the need for change.

 

I just don't think there is a system that can exist where someone isn't oppressed in some way. Have you ever read the Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin? 

 

I think a solution is to make sure everyone in society can have their basic needs met in a way that is equitable and just. Everyone. It means creating access and opportunities for everyone regardless of where they are in life. A universal basic income would be a start. Universal healthcare for everyone (even in the US) would be great. Overhauling our criminal justice system, overhaul our food supply system. Life is hard when basic needs aren't met. Once that happens people will have time to do other things. 

 

 

On 4/19/2021 at 1:51 PM, petra said:

 Michael Speaks: June 2008] Excerpts:

 

Old Soul politics return to a state of no politics, but more of what might be considered Anarchy. We use the word "anarchy" in its true definition, not as the Young or Mature soul might exploit the term. The anarchy usually takes on a form that would be recognized as Tribalism.

 

From what we can see of other populations dominated by Old Soul Ages and paradigms, there are no governments that you would recognize beyond being more tribal groups in communication and exchange with one another, but with no discernible leader or authority.

 

This is one of the reasons our teaching is particularly attractive to the older soul, since there is no discernible authority beyond the self, and even the sense of self is held in question to a degree that allows for sensitive consideration of all factors involved in the life.

 

The Infant Soul uses Freedom; the Baby Soul uses Authority; the Young Soul uses Capital; the Mature Soul uses Well-Being; and the Old Soul uses Communication at the root of their politics.

 

It could be said then that the politics of the Old Soul are CONTEXTUAL. Certain politics apply within specific instances, but are not seen as appropriate across the board. And each person determines his or her level of compliance within certain contexts, or freely moves to more appropriate contexts.

 

There will come a time, with no discernible leader or authority. Old Souls, if manifested as such, me thinks, just naturally yearn for what Michael describes as Anarchy.

 

 

 

I forgot all about this. So what, we would move towards a clan system? And the ones who are the best communicators would be at the top of the social chain and emotional intelligence would be more important than any other kind of intelligence I'm guessing. 

 

I don't really see how anything would get done without a leader or some kind of authority unless everyone does what they say they will do and trusts other people to do what they say they will do. That seems unlikely. Maybe humans really will evolve emotionally after all. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2021 at 5:54 PM, Sam K said:

 

This series of videos gives an excellent rundown of how an anarchist society would work. Obviously, it's not definitive; there's a range of opinions on specifics, but this is a good starting point for understanding the practical implementation of anarchism.

 

Anarchism is novel, in the sense that's it's never been attempted on the scale of a major nation.  I do not, however, think that it's some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. It can be done.

 

Thanks for posting that. It was helpful. I don't know why it honestly never ocurred to me that there would be different flavors of anarchism. But after he said that I went Duh! LOL The parts about random selection for representation reminded me of The Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson and The Dispossessed by LeGuin. I really need to read more recent books. Oh boy. The political systems in both those books involved random selection or some kind of draft to representative service at crucial times in the main characters life. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.

 

That is why I say radical democracy.

 

Yes they may be a leader position, but that position is subject to removal by vote.

 

Therefore, it limits an oppression that can happen.

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ckaricai said:

I just don't think there is a system that can exist where someone isn't oppressed in some way. 

 

[...] 

 

I don't really see how anything would get done without a leader or some kind of authority unless everyone does what they say they will do and trusts other people to do what they say they will do. That seems unlikely. Maybe humans really will evolve emotionally after all. 

Why? If you believe in the Ms’ Teachings that evolution is a journey toward love and truth, why is it such a crazy idea to you that we could evolve toward a truthful, compassionate society?

  • LIKE/LOVE 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Becca the Student said:

Why? If you believe in the Ms’ Teachings that evolution is a journey toward love and truth, why is it such a crazy idea to you that we could evolve toward a truthful, compassionate society?

 

What does knowing a teaching have to do with the fact that humans are jerks and have always been jerks for millions of years? It's not a stretch to believe that we will continue to be jerks millions of years from now. Having compassion and being honest doesn't mean you won't also be an asshole sometimes. These teachings don't erase human nature, they provide practical methods to deal with it. And even so it's a take what you need and leave the rest kind of a thing. Again, I am not an idealist. I need details to help fill out the bigger picture. So there might be tribalism and people are responsible for themselves and would decide leaders when necessary. Well, what does that really look like? This brings up a ton of questions about what life is really like for everyone including people who might not comply with societal norms for whatever reason. Those are the folks who end up disadvantaged. Because the personality that is me is one of those people, I'm going to always think about that. 

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ckaricai  In this case the teaching is: Learning How To Choose, Choosing How To Learn!

 

So there is a jerk in all of us, agreed. Do I have to let that jerk run my life, or is there more to chose from?

There will have to be a lot of catching up, my Trust stands in Truth Love Energy!

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ckaricai I feel like I have to counter that with "humans are kind, too, and have always been kind for millions of years," because a blanket statement like that feels disingenuous to the whole of human experience. The whole of which we aren't even privy too -- we only know the most recent arc of our existence. But mostly I guess I just don't understand believing in evolution and also believing humans are static creatures that will never change. Isn't evolution change by nature?

 

I'm a spiritualist rather than an idealist, in Michael terms, but perhaps that's where my disconnect with you is coming from. I do understand being frustrated with humanity as we currently are. I was also born into a body that doesn't conform to societal norms, and this particular era is just a depressing one to live through. It can wear you down.

 

But I'm also just looking at this in scientific terms. The only constant in the universe is change. So it stands to reason humanity as it is now will not be humanity as it is in the future. Humanity as it is now may seem similar to but is inherently not the humanity of the past. Just knowing that change is inevitable opens up more options for me to "deal with" the present moment. If I operate under the assumption humans will always suck and we will always oppress each other, then what's the point pursuing a better society? Humans will always suck. If I operate under the assumption humans act the way we do because we are traumatized by our current society, and are kinder and capable of more love than we give ourselves credit for -- and social science and effective rehab-psychology backs me on this assumption -- then I can look for where the trauma is happening, find ways to heal it, and discover the path toward a better society. 

 

Does that make sense? If I assume we will always oppress each other, then I'm searching for who to oppress next. If I assume I can eradicate oppression, then I'm searching for how to do so.

Edited by Becca the Student
  • LIKE/LOVE 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would it look like?

 

Fair.

 

@Bobby years ago posted a session where he asked a similar question.  He was asking specifically about a life in an RBE. Micheal stated he plays the flute.  That is his "job".  They stated that it included everything from formal concerts, impromptu performances, sitting on a balcony just improvising, lesson for those who wished to learned.

 

The housing "he" lives in was negotiated. If I remember correctly, they said he asked around if his service would appreciated there and he moved in.

 

Noncompete on youtube described a situation in Vietnam where he lives. The Vietnamese have a saying that roughly means the king does whatever but the people take care of themselves.

 

Outside the apartment complex he lived in a homeless man had been loving for a few weeks.  The tenants got together to discuss what they should do about it. They decided that since they had an empty apartment to try to take him in.  So the landlord agreed.  They got him into the apartment,donated clothes and furniture, a lady in the apartment owned a restaurant and made sure he was fed, amd they got him hooked back into the government services to help him more.

 

Extrapolating from Bobby's life.

 

The society is not based on debt or money.  Micheal has stated several times about moving from this debt based system we are in to a contribution based system.  In that example, his contribution is music.

 

Other people in the world would contribute food, housing, maintinance, dance, clothing, scientific discovery, etc.

 

If someone is not contributing currently, then they are not contributing.  They will again at some time. 

 

Now can this be exploited, yes.  Any system can be.

 

This I feel would not work in our current paradigm. We have to many beliefs in this paradigm that would derail it into an oppressive system.

 

That is why the changes in the paradigm have to happen either in parallel or prior to the system being fully realized.

 

Does that help?

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 3
  • THANK YOU! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...