>You glorify the humans too much.
The problem is that people who are deactivated and dumbed down, having little to no experience or understanding of higher consciousness or real knowledge (sadly, most people), are easily fooled into the belief that "human nature" is animalistic and instinctual, and that there is no more to it than that. So much propaganda that passes for "science" in academia attempts to psychologically inculcate the notion that the universe is dead, randomly playing out cause and effect for no purpose.
When this dictum is truly taken to heart, and enough knowledge, care, and action is taken to activate latent potentials of consciousness, experience alone reduces to absurdity the notion of a dead and random existence, or of humans being nothing more than mechanistic automatons enslaved to instinct.
<quote>"common understanding" is dumbed down and retarded, being based on a severe level of ignorance.</quote>
What is wrong with the common understandings of slavery, theft, and violence?
The common understanding of slavery is: Some humans being considered subhuman and wholly owned by other humans as property for the purpose of work without pay and without rights.
>What is wrong with the common understandings of slavery, theft, and violence?
>The common understanding of slavery is: Some humans being considered subhuman
>and wholly owned by other humans as property for the purpose of work without pay and without rights.
I think the quotes I mentioned clarify this very well. Did you read them and apply some thought to the matter? Did you watch the videos I posted?
To spell it out: what's wrong is the failure to recognize that the defining factors of slavery, that which makes it immoral, (violent coercion and theft of productivity), absolutely applies to taxation, regardless of whether the claim of ownership of person is formally declared. This should be self-evident and obvious except to a mind so heavily conditioned and seduced by fallacious propaganda that the ability to actually think for oneself has been all but wiped out.
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
- Edward Mandell House; in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson [President 1913-1921]
One cannot change reality by changing the words you use to describe reality. Look beneath the rhetoric, and glimpse the truth.
I'll get back to #53, later.
In the meantime, what political persuasion do you consider yourself as? You seem to be libertarian, which can be far-right. But, unlike far-right libertarians you seem to be antiwar.
That's because most people who apply the term "libertarian" to themselves do so incorrectly, having only a dim understanding of the principle, never-mind what it means to act in accordance with it consistently; and also due both to how the term is misapplied in the media with billionaire corporate CEOs referring to themselves as "libertarian" because they don't want to pay taxes, and the Libertarian Party which is oxymoronic in its very existence.
This is theater, and naturally there are those loudly pointing to these buffoons calling themselves "libertarian" as a way to discredit libertarianism altogether. The term has been so besmirched, that many in the movement adopt new terminology, such as agorism instead of anarchy, and voluntaryism instead of libertarianism in order to distinguish themselves from the moronic cacophony now associated with those other words.
“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.”
― Philip K. Dick
As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if you look at the etymology and the original meanings of words such as libertarian, capitalism, and anarchy, you can see how these words have been hijacked through the widespread and deliberate misapplication of them in popular media.
You're freaking out, xochinla.
Cool-out and assess the situation given your principles and the inalterable laws of strategy.
Then you will see that this has been going on for far longer than the US, and it's a bit of a million-d chess situation, and within that million-d chess keeping the USA great is THE single most important thing.
Take, if you will grant me the lee-way, the difference between what Obama represented and what Trump represents. It is a small piece in the vast puzzle of this war you correctly point out. Obama was the idea of an elected king, people wanted a sovereign that they voted for. Obama was prompted to live up to the standards of a sovereign, to fully encapsulate and control the head-man power of a state in a man. Trump, on the other hand, is just another schmuck like you and me elected to represent a nation of sovereigns. That's the basic idea of a republic, a maintained ironic distance between the office and the man. And why must the office exist? Well, if you start thinking of it as a fort against encroaching sovereigns, a move made in the context of a war, instead of a Platonic ideal, you may understand. The post does not exist so that the man elected president may have it, but so that free men, sovereigns in their land, may choose among themselves one to represent them against sovereigns that have submission in mind.
Trump is a citizen holding an office. Obama was an elected king. Trump is one of us, thinks like one of us, and understands himself as what a republic thinks of a president: a sovereign citizen among sovereign citizens fighting for their interests but, most of all, against encroaching sovereigns.
Say the state of the USA disbanded. What would you do against powers such as China, Iran, Communism (as represented in various states)?
Be cool. Realize the importance of the USA. And remember: it's a marathon, not a sprint. War is hell.
In case you were wondering, I don't vote and do my best to avoid taxes, hate them.
It's not a matter of what one should do. It is a matter of strategic comprehension.
So, I do relate. But you're freaking out. Tell me one time that won you a chess match.