This is an important thought process for me because far too often I see permaculturist (some big names) with a political bent trying to grab the ownership of permiculture and forcing it into the shape of their political ideology, often using green-washing tactics.
Anarchy unfortunately suffers from a negative reputation, and it's possible that this perception has been intentionally shaped to discourage serious consideration. Let's not forget, those in positions of power often have a vested interest in maintaining their authority.
Anarchy boldly stands as a societal construct liberated from the clutches of rulers, zealously championed by anarchists who dare to challenge the very essence of the state, envisioning a world devoid of its chains, where voluntary free associations reign supreme. These institutions or alliances are carefully crafted to embody audacious ideals like community self-reliance, interconnectedness, and unapologetic individualism. Yet the average Joe believe anarchy would lead to carnage in the streets. To put it bluntly, anarchy unabashedly proclaims the reign of 'no rulers' and the absence of domineering authority. Throughout history, acts of carnage have typically originated from either self-proclaimed or elected authorities. Show me an example of anarchies atrosities? Under anarchies unyielding banner, there's no single group or autocrat wielding coercive power; it's a realm where every soul embraces self-governance or joins forces in collective empowerment.
When discussing progress, it's crucial to define what we mean by it. Civilization can be defined as the journey toward a more advanced state. However, it's worth considering the specific directions this advancement takes. We've transitioned from using primitive tools like bows and arrows to possessing the capacity to cause widespread destruction with a single weapon. Is this the type of technological advancement we aim for?
In my field, I observe the technically advanced methods of farming, which are granted approval by government authorities, leading to the accelerated degradation of our soil. It's important to recognize that soil, upon which all life on Earth depends, is being eroded at an alarming rate. Both of these examples highlight the role of government sanction in shaping the trajectory of progress.
The term "government" itself does exactly what it says on the tin. It can be broken down into its components: "govern," which means to control, and "ment," which relates to the mind. In this context, government can be seen as a system of mind control, strategically established to influence individuals to act in accordance with the desires of those in authority.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe
I understand more with your explanation, thanks. I suppose what I'm still trying to say though is.. isn't it pointless? Like it or not, most people want to be governed. Most people just want to get on with their lives and let leaders do their thing (not to say it's ever done perfectly or, half the time, even competently). And also do you think your beliefs reflect you life? I read in one of your other posts that you spent 22 years in the Navy. So you do not "need any Government" but worked for the government and probably receive a pension from said government. Is that hypercritical? Not trying to be rude, just interested? I think my point here is that you seem to have reached a good point financially in your life where you can afford to be an anarchist, do you think younger people can afford to make the same choices you are making but without the good income?
In my perspective, deeming something as "pointless" stands as one of the most disheartening statements a person can make regarding any matter. Life is not merely a passive occurrence; rather, it necessitates active cultivation and purposeful engagement.
Nihilism defined – The rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
Travis, consider this: everything either possesses inherent purpose or it does not; that distinction lies within one's volition. As for myself, I consciously opt not to embrace nihilism, for life carries profound significance in my eyes. The boundless love I harbour for my children serves as a testament to this belief. How can one feel so much if life is pointless? Once we uncover that significance, the pursuit of principles that render existence worthwhile becomes paramount. Subsequently, depending on one's character, there arises a duty to pass on these guiding principles, with the aim of fashioning a more promising world for our progeny. My perhaps modest endeavour in this regard is encapsulated in this blog (and teaching permaculture)—a forum for expressing my convictions and aspirations. To some, it may appear as mere "howling at the wind," but to me, it embodies profound purpose and meaning.
Surprisingly, your remark about a supposed "pointlessness" actually brings us to the very essence of existence, the meaning of life one might say and I happen to possess my own clear understanding of this, as, in my perspective, it aligns with the fundamental tenet of permaculture, its prime directive.
“The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children”.
But in today’s world this is not a simple thing to do…
I must assert unequivocally that your assertion, suggesting that most individuals desire governance, is fundamentally flawed. It's essential to clarify that "govern" implies control, and in this context, the accurate term you might have been looking for would be "leadership", the masses do desire leadership. Regrettably, many of the world's influential figures function as governors rather than true leaders, capitalizing on the vulnerabilities, weakness of mind, of the general populace. Given the busy lives led by people at large, there's a natural inclination to delegate the handling of significant issues to authoritative figures, thereby absolving themselves of responsibility. However, this delegation often comes at a cost, as it places the trust in the hands of a charismatic figure, typically possessing a slightly higher IQ (and sociopathic tendencies) more than willing to shoulder the burden. It is imperative to recognize that nothing comes without its consequences, shirk your responsibility at your own risk!!!
Incidentally, it is imperative to recognize that the absence of formal governance does not preclude the existence of leadership or authority figures within an anarchic system. This underscores a common misconception concerning the true essence of anarchy. In such a system, individuals possess the autonomy to voluntarily follow or acknowledge the opinions and guidance of authority figures without being bound by a government-imposed social contract, which all too often becomes tainted by the influence of sociopathic individuals who have gained control. It is worth noting that a common law social contract represents a distinct concept, perhaps meriting a discussion on another occasion.
Do my convictions truly mirror the course of my life? In reality, they do not. I am but a minuscule entity ensnared within the intricate web of a colossal societal framework, with no plausible means to lead an existence beyond its confines. The system itself steadfastly opposes such a departure. From the moment of my birth, my existence has been formally recorded—a process laden with profound implications, albeit too intricate to delve into within this response. The necessities of life compel me to rely on a form of exchange we commonly refer to as "currency" (distinguishing "currency" from "money" is important). Even disentangling myself from these systems and attempting to subsist without currency proves infeasible, owing to the obligatory taxes imposed upon me. Were there a box I could select to opt out, I would readily do so, but the system, rooted in control, remains resolute in preventing such an exit.
The Margaret Mead quote:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
This quote underscores the significant impact that a dedicated and passionate minority can have on effecting positive change in society… Is what I’m doing helping with that? I hope so.
In response to your accusation of hypocrisy, which I genuinely do not find offensive, I hope you can recognize the evolution that has transpired in my character since I was a 19-years old young recruit, spanning a period of 34 years. Had I possessed the profound knowledge and insights I now hold at that youthful age, undoubtedly, the trajectory of my life would have taken a markedly different course. Regrettably, at 19, I lacked access to mentors untainted by the prevailing system's indoctrination to offer guidance. My journey towards acquiring the wisdom I now possess primarily began when I became a parent, an experience that prompted me to seek knowledge through the guidance of insightful mentors within the pages of books. This transformative process only initiated after the birth of my first child.
The youth do not possess the liberty to readily embrace an anarchist ideology, primarily because, much like yourself, they often lack a comprehensive understanding of the true essence of this concept. This is fundamentally an issue related to education and the pervasive influence of propaganda. We all exist within a tightly structured societal framework, one that is inherently resistant to relinquishing its power voluntarily. Interestingly, leading a permaculture lifestyle can be achieved without a significant reliance on currency, and I would encourage you to explore Michael Tellinger's work, specifically his book “UBUNTU Contributionism– A Blueprint for Human Prosperity," which offers a credible alternative. In essence, the need for money predominantly arises when we are compelled to engage with the prevailing control system.
It's interesting your very last point about money, I watched Elon Musk's discussion with Sunak at the UK AI Safety Summit today and he envisioned a world, through the hopefully GOOD use of AI, where humanity will have universal high-income, no one will need to work, and we will have an abundance of goods and services. We are potentially nearing the a huge crossroads on how we use this incredibly disruptive technology - I am optimistic about the future but there are major risks. Money could become redundant in such visions of our next steps for our species, but I think we differ on how we get there.
I disagree on your description of 'govern', I don't think it "implies control" solely. You are merely choosing that word from many other words that describe it; administer or manage being two examples. It's clear you have a distain for power (power in terms of being elected to office) and those who wield it. I think I must be a glass half full type of guy as I think a lot of politicians do a good (a job incidentally very few of us actually want) and many of them are decent people who want to make the world a better place - to tar them all with the "sociopathic individuals" brush is unfair in my opinion. An example of this I often use is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US, I think she is a remarkable young woman who cares deeply about her community and wants nothing more than to improve the lives of all her constituents. However she is massively tarnished with a socialist/communist reputation and as someone who "hates" America, etc etc. I implore people I meet to follow her on social media for a week to get a fuller understanding of who she is. Of course I'm not asking anyone to agree with her political beliefs but to deny her passion for making a difference is unjust and wrong. People immediately tell me "well you can portray anything via social media" - she spends hours per week sometimes just explaining the rules, regulations, processes, etc of the House of Representatives just to educate her followers. I could go on, but the point is she absolutely does care about making a difference for good. It's all to easy to believe the opposite when we have differing political views, "I don't agree with Jeremy Corbyn, therefore he must be a terrorist sympathizer / antisemite". I am not exempt from this perspective, it is increasingly difficult to navigate through the barrage of political opinions and beliefs through every form of media we consume to get an accurate picture of who our leaders / politicians really are and what they actually stand for.
If I had to place more blame in either the system or the people within the system, I would blame the system. I think people are inherently good.
AI is a subject I know very little about so I will not comment, any opinions I might offer would therefore not really be worth anything.
but on other matters...
My aversion is not directed towards power itself, but rather towards those who wield power for malevolent purposes. My discovery of evil, in the last few years, has amazingly turned me from a lifelong atheist into believing in a good God.
I believe that, while many potential good MPs may begin their political careers with noble intentions, the dynamics of party politics often compel them to conform to party lines, eroding their ability to stay true to their original principles.
"The opposite of bravery is not cowardice, but rather conformity." Rollo May
(I would, however, actually suggest these good potential MPs are weened out in the selection process, the selection process looks for yes men)
Additionally, I believe you are right, it does takes a certain type of person to be an MP. It is observable that the typical MP does not necessarily reflect the broader population, as the role tends to attract individuals who may not have the where-with-all to excelled in business and sadly too often demonstrate, I repeat, sociopathic tendencies. It seems this particular personality profile appears to be drawn to the field of politics. The dark triad is pasted all over them.
Regrettably, the politician you have chosen to commend is, in many, many respects, a less than ideal candidate for any sort of praise. It is advisable to undertake thorough research on this seemingly charismatic individual. Her charm, it appears, played a pivotal role in securing her position, as she essentially auditioned for her current role in Congress. It is noteworthy that she openly acknowledges that it was her brother who signed her up for the audition. (I would recommend searching for the video where Alexandra Rojas, the Executive Director of the Justice Democrats, elucidates the process of this casting call.) AOC is an actress!!!
Prior to assuming her congressional role, she had not pursued a traditional political career by working on the campaign trails of established politicians to gain political experience. Instead, she had been employed as a bartender in a restaurant. It is likely that AOC is being directed and controlled by Zack Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti, associated with organizations Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats. These individuals have aspirations of what they might describe as benevolent dictatorship… communism would work if they were in charge… NOT!!!
AOC is a scripted and produced puppet of the Justice Democrats. AOC is merely their branding – a very pretty cover on a malevolent book… if you think she’s responsible for a single one of her social media posts you are frankly deluded.
AOC self-identifies as a democratic socialist. It is worth noting the historical connection between this ideology and the early communist movement in Russia. The initial name of the first communist political party in Russia, of which Lenin was a member, was the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. The shared nomenclature between democratic socialism and the early Russian communist movement holds historical significance, inviting further exploration of the evolution of political ideologies and their nomenclature.
AOCs controllers, as I’m sure she’s not clever enough to realise, don’t just want full blown Marxism they want to heap in a whole load of social justice on top… Hell on Earth!!!
Have you seen AOC when she is forced to go off script… embarrassing… and she debates no one, she is 100% an actress.
Two worthy acting roles were her photos at the border and her fainted terror on J5… Pathetic!!!
Exley and his team employ a strategic and assertive approach in their political activities. Their tactics involve the fielding of socialist candidates who outwardly present themselves as Republicans in Republican primaries during low-turnout elections. This approach results in the emergence of candidates who, despite being positioned as Republicans on the ballot, carry socialist endorsements. In these elections, many Republican voters may simply mark the box designated for the "R" without realizing that they are effectively voting for a candidate backed by socialist ideals. This method can be likened to a bait-and-switch strategy, constituting a form of electoral deception. (There are available videos where Exley discusses this approach, referring to it as his "hack" of the system.)
It's important to note that Zack Exley has authored a book titled "Rules for Revolutionaries." Although I have not personally read this book, I am aware that it draws inspiration from the work "Rules for Radicals." by Saul Alinsky. Which I have read… the dedication for that book is interesting. The dedication reads: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
…and please don’t get me started on AOC and the Green New deal!!!
Corbyn falls foul of the not being able to criticize the Israeli government agenda. I used to like him because I thought he was more principled, even if I did not agree with a lot of what he said, then he became party leader and the principles seemed to fly out the window. (I think his brother Piers is great)
Navigating the intricate landscape of politics can be an exceptionally challenging endeavour, if not, in some perspectives impossible. (I believe that is by design) This complexity arises from the multifaceted nature of politics, often characterized by a myriad of competing interests, hidden agendas, and the perception of a facade in which the true motivations of political actors are not always transparent or apparent.
I share the belief that, at their core, people tend to have intrinsic goodness. However, it is also observed that individuals can sometimes be naive or susceptible to manipulation, primarily because of a lack of vigilance in conducting their own research and critical thinking. Laziness or complacency can indeed make individuals more vulnerable to being influenced or misled by external factors, such as misleading information or persuasive rhetoric. It underscores the importance of fostering a sense of personal responsibility and an active engagement with information and critical thinking.
Your response detailing your opinion on AOC was very disheartening to me, but not at all unexpected to be honest. It makes me sad that you have such distain for her as your views are clearly that of the US right wing and not your own. I think it is you who needs to “undertake thorough research” on her and not me. Before I go into detail on your politicized assassination of her character / history let me first ask a question on how MPs or representatives be chosen; would you rather a) they be chosen from the community they live in and clearly have a passion for or b) have never been to said community but are selected by their party seemingly because they are an Oxford educated / ex-Goldman Sachs / married to a billionaire type person? What would align closer with the principles of permaculture? Rishi Sunak is choice b). I’m not saying you’re all for that choice, but what is better for the community? Be honest.
Now let us examine your disgusting takedown of AOC:
- “Her charm, it appears, played a pivotal role in securing her position” – um, yes. Politicians kinda need it nowadays.
- Her brother signed her up. Yes. What’s wrong with that? It’s not illegal. Audition? Definitely not. She was picked because of her background and what she represented. More on that later.
- “not pursued a traditional political career” / “employed as a bartender in a restaurant” – so you think people who work as bar tenders / waitresses should not be politicians? How disgusting. Do you have a daughter? I’m guessing you must have a family member who at one point worked as a lowly server in the hospitality industry. Would you tell them they are not worthy / capable of becoming anything in life because of that? Also note that Sunak worked as a waiter in an curry house - should he resign immediately? Or do you have different opinions on what men and women are capable of? And let’s dig a little deeper here; AOC worked in a bar because she was helping her family pay medical bills. Problem with that? I think that is extremely honourable.
- “It is likely that AOC is being directed and controlled by Zack Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti” – key word there is “likely”. Your whole hatred and assassination of this woman basically comes down to “likely”. That is laughable. Maybe try and prove it. But you can’t. It is your belief. Your sentence should read “I believe that AOC is being directed and controlled by Zack Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti”. Give me evidence.
- “if you think she’s responsible for a single one of her social media posts you are frankly deluded” – why are you so full of hate? Like I said in my previous reply, follow her for a week. And how can she not be responsible for all the LIVE social media posts she does? Just last week she did a live Q&A on student debt forgiveness and how you can potentially claim it and the procedures (this is not about the policy). You cannot fake LIVE Q&A. Follow her. You won’t. She is a young, social media savvy person. Get used to it old timer.
- “historical connection between this ideology and the early communist movement in Russia blah blah” – I do not care. She works for the good of her community. You’re starting to sound like the type of person who when called a conspiracy theorist retorts with “well the CIA coined that phrase blah blah”. Irrelevant – if the shoe fits then it’s right, I don’t need a history on shoemaking.
- “AOCs controllers, as I’m sure she’s not clever enough to realise”. Well let’s take a look at her background, you know the bits you accidentally forgot to mention. What about her being an intern for Senator Ted Kennedy during college, the same college she graduated from with two degrees. She launched Brook Avenue Press, a now-defunct publishing firm for books that portrayed the Bronx in a positive light. She worked as an organizer for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2016. Now tell me again how she’s not intelligent enough or how she has “not pursued a traditional political career by working on the campaign trails of established politicians to gain political experience”. Just admit you’re wrong on these points. Compare her to Sunak’s background.
- “Have you seen AOC when she is forced to go off script… embarrassing… and she debates no one, she is 100% an actress.” – give me an example. This is an easy win for you. And why do you think politicians have to debate people? I cannot stand the modern debate style politics, just tell me your beliefs / manifesto. It should not be a verbal boxing match to decide who gets elected. With that said, you can search for and watch AOCs 2018 primary debate against Crowley on NY1.com. It was more of an interview with both candidates admittedly but for the next actual scheduled debate Crowley did not turn up as he knew he was outmatched by AOC.
- “Two worthy acting roles were her photos at the border and her fainted terror on J5… Pathetic!!!” – SHOCK: politician poses for political pictures!! She is definitely the first to do that!! But you’re wrong anyway, she always talks about immigration and protecting human rights of other human beings. And she has also been heavily criticized lately for NOT visiting the border. Do you get it? I’m thinking no.
I am thoroughly repulsed by your takedown of AOC. It reads as a party political broadcast by the US rightwing. Did you copy your response from Breitbart? The way you twist the facts to massage your own beliefs is fascinating and frightening to me. The whole “Justice Democrats” thing is not an issue. They certainly had a hand in AOC getting elected, but what is the issue really? I see it as a talent contest and the cream always rises to the top (and as I have proved, she was absolutely qualified to be a politician). Your argument against it is that it’s not the traditional way to elect politicians. But that is the point. It is aiming to get real people elected, those who like AOC thought that a career in politics was only for the rich. And only for those that get their funding from oil companies, or from pharma companies, or from gun companies, etc. And just because you are helped to the stage by a group does not mean you are beholden to them for the rest of your life. I bet you are one of those people who thinks that the WEF Young Global Leaders are “infiltrating” cabinets around the world because of Schwab’s regrettable use of words in his comment? I went on a Microsoft training course 15 years ago for two days, do you think Satya Nadella thinks he has “infiltrated” Google now I work for them? I get it, you don’t like AOCs politics, but to take down her as a person is truly disgusting. I hope you do not have a daughter or if you do you treat her with more respect than you do to this lady.
I understand your desire to maintain the focus on specific areas of my blog, however, I want to try to keep all conversations in the permaculture world. Let's pivot back to that subject.
Concerning the divergence in our conversation, I appreciate your points and the weaknesses you've identified in my arguments, though i feel equipped to better defend my position, I just don't want to debate you here on in this space. Regarding your perspective on AOC - you can maintain your belief that she is genuine in her actions and I will continue to consider her best characterized as a "fraud/puppet/actress." It's clear you hold onto your perception, despite my warnings, and I respect your stance. I want to clarify that when you used the term "hatred," it was the end of our conversation, your asumption wnet too far on this matter, there is no hate in my heart, just sadness for the world.
I'm returning to the essence of the work on permaculture and its potential to shape the world positively, I'd be eager to explore how this philosophy can offer sustainable solutions, foster environmental stewardship, and potentially influence broader societal changes. If you're open to it, let's delve deeper into this impactful subject.
I'm sure we can have many more agreeable conversations in this realm.
One thing that does interest me is you describing yourself as an anarchist. Would you actually want those ideals widely accepted / followed? To me a few anarchists scattered around here and there is no problem, but if it were widely followed that would possibly effect people who rely on regular forms of Government. Does an anarchist believe in technological advancement? I may be wrong but it seems like anarchy, if widely accepted, would not enable us to progress as a society.
Anarchy unfortunately suffers from a negative reputation, and it's possible that this perception has been intentionally shaped to discourage serious consideration. Let's not forget, those in positions of power often have a vested interest in maintaining their authority.
Anarchy boldly stands as a societal construct liberated from the clutches of rulers, zealously championed by anarchists who dare to challenge the very essence of the state, envisioning a world devoid of its chains, where voluntary free associations reign supreme. These institutions or alliances are carefully crafted to embody audacious ideals like community self-reliance, interconnectedness, and unapologetic individualism. Yet the average Joe believe anarchy would lead to carnage in the streets. To put it bluntly, anarchy unabashedly proclaims the reign of 'no rulers' and the absence of domineering authority. Throughout history, acts of carnage have typically originated from either self-proclaimed or elected authorities. Show me an example of anarchies atrosities? Under anarchies unyielding banner, there's no single group or autocrat wielding coercive power; it's a realm where every soul embraces self-governance or joins forces in collective empowerment.
When discussing progress, it's crucial to define what we mean by it. Civilization can be defined as the journey toward a more advanced state. However, it's worth considering the specific directions this advancement takes. We've transitioned from using primitive tools like bows and arrows to possessing the capacity to cause widespread destruction with a single weapon. Is this the type of technological advancement we aim for?
In my field, I observe the technically advanced methods of farming, which are granted approval by government authorities, leading to the accelerated degradation of our soil. It's important to recognize that soil, upon which all life on Earth depends, is being eroded at an alarming rate. Both of these examples highlight the role of government sanction in shaping the trajectory of progress.
The term "government" itself does exactly what it says on the tin. It can be broken down into its components: "govern," which means to control, and "ment," which relates to the mind. In this context, government can be seen as a system of mind control, strategically established to influence individuals to act in accordance with the desires of those in authority.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe
I understand more with your explanation, thanks. I suppose what I'm still trying to say though is.. isn't it pointless? Like it or not, most people want to be governed. Most people just want to get on with their lives and let leaders do their thing (not to say it's ever done perfectly or, half the time, even competently). And also do you think your beliefs reflect you life? I read in one of your other posts that you spent 22 years in the Navy. So you do not "need any Government" but worked for the government and probably receive a pension from said government. Is that hypercritical? Not trying to be rude, just interested? I think my point here is that you seem to have reached a good point financially in your life where you can afford to be an anarchist, do you think younger people can afford to make the same choices you are making but without the good income?
In my perspective, deeming something as "pointless" stands as one of the most disheartening statements a person can make regarding any matter. Life is not merely a passive occurrence; rather, it necessitates active cultivation and purposeful engagement.
Nihilism defined – The rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
Travis, consider this: everything either possesses inherent purpose or it does not; that distinction lies within one's volition. As for myself, I consciously opt not to embrace nihilism, for life carries profound significance in my eyes. The boundless love I harbour for my children serves as a testament to this belief. How can one feel so much if life is pointless? Once we uncover that significance, the pursuit of principles that render existence worthwhile becomes paramount. Subsequently, depending on one's character, there arises a duty to pass on these guiding principles, with the aim of fashioning a more promising world for our progeny. My perhaps modest endeavour in this regard is encapsulated in this blog (and teaching permaculture)—a forum for expressing my convictions and aspirations. To some, it may appear as mere "howling at the wind," but to me, it embodies profound purpose and meaning.
Surprisingly, your remark about a supposed "pointlessness" actually brings us to the very essence of existence, the meaning of life one might say and I happen to possess my own clear understanding of this, as, in my perspective, it aligns with the fundamental tenet of permaculture, its prime directive.
“The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children”.
But in today’s world this is not a simple thing to do…
I must assert unequivocally that your assertion, suggesting that most individuals desire governance, is fundamentally flawed. It's essential to clarify that "govern" implies control, and in this context, the accurate term you might have been looking for would be "leadership", the masses do desire leadership. Regrettably, many of the world's influential figures function as governors rather than true leaders, capitalizing on the vulnerabilities, weakness of mind, of the general populace. Given the busy lives led by people at large, there's a natural inclination to delegate the handling of significant issues to authoritative figures, thereby absolving themselves of responsibility. However, this delegation often comes at a cost, as it places the trust in the hands of a charismatic figure, typically possessing a slightly higher IQ (and sociopathic tendencies) more than willing to shoulder the burden. It is imperative to recognize that nothing comes without its consequences, shirk your responsibility at your own risk!!!
Incidentally, it is imperative to recognize that the absence of formal governance does not preclude the existence of leadership or authority figures within an anarchic system. This underscores a common misconception concerning the true essence of anarchy. In such a system, individuals possess the autonomy to voluntarily follow or acknowledge the opinions and guidance of authority figures without being bound by a government-imposed social contract, which all too often becomes tainted by the influence of sociopathic individuals who have gained control. It is worth noting that a common law social contract represents a distinct concept, perhaps meriting a discussion on another occasion.
Do my convictions truly mirror the course of my life? In reality, they do not. I am but a minuscule entity ensnared within the intricate web of a colossal societal framework, with no plausible means to lead an existence beyond its confines. The system itself steadfastly opposes such a departure. From the moment of my birth, my existence has been formally recorded—a process laden with profound implications, albeit too intricate to delve into within this response. The necessities of life compel me to rely on a form of exchange we commonly refer to as "currency" (distinguishing "currency" from "money" is important). Even disentangling myself from these systems and attempting to subsist without currency proves infeasible, owing to the obligatory taxes imposed upon me. Were there a box I could select to opt out, I would readily do so, but the system, rooted in control, remains resolute in preventing such an exit.
The Margaret Mead quote:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
This quote underscores the significant impact that a dedicated and passionate minority can have on effecting positive change in society… Is what I’m doing helping with that? I hope so.
In response to your accusation of hypocrisy, which I genuinely do not find offensive, I hope you can recognize the evolution that has transpired in my character since I was a 19-years old young recruit, spanning a period of 34 years. Had I possessed the profound knowledge and insights I now hold at that youthful age, undoubtedly, the trajectory of my life would have taken a markedly different course. Regrettably, at 19, I lacked access to mentors untainted by the prevailing system's indoctrination to offer guidance. My journey towards acquiring the wisdom I now possess primarily began when I became a parent, an experience that prompted me to seek knowledge through the guidance of insightful mentors within the pages of books. This transformative process only initiated after the birth of my first child.
The youth do not possess the liberty to readily embrace an anarchist ideology, primarily because, much like yourself, they often lack a comprehensive understanding of the true essence of this concept. This is fundamentally an issue related to education and the pervasive influence of propaganda. We all exist within a tightly structured societal framework, one that is inherently resistant to relinquishing its power voluntarily. Interestingly, leading a permaculture lifestyle can be achieved without a significant reliance on currency, and I would encourage you to explore Michael Tellinger's work, specifically his book “UBUNTU Contributionism– A Blueprint for Human Prosperity," which offers a credible alternative. In essence, the need for money predominantly arises when we are compelled to engage with the prevailing control system.
I hope that gives you some clarity?
It's interesting your very last point about money, I watched Elon Musk's discussion with Sunak at the UK AI Safety Summit today and he envisioned a world, through the hopefully GOOD use of AI, where humanity will have universal high-income, no one will need to work, and we will have an abundance of goods and services. We are potentially nearing the a huge crossroads on how we use this incredibly disruptive technology - I am optimistic about the future but there are major risks. Money could become redundant in such visions of our next steps for our species, but I think we differ on how we get there.
I disagree on your description of 'govern', I don't think it "implies control" solely. You are merely choosing that word from many other words that describe it; administer or manage being two examples. It's clear you have a distain for power (power in terms of being elected to office) and those who wield it. I think I must be a glass half full type of guy as I think a lot of politicians do a good (a job incidentally very few of us actually want) and many of them are decent people who want to make the world a better place - to tar them all with the "sociopathic individuals" brush is unfair in my opinion. An example of this I often use is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US, I think she is a remarkable young woman who cares deeply about her community and wants nothing more than to improve the lives of all her constituents. However she is massively tarnished with a socialist/communist reputation and as someone who "hates" America, etc etc. I implore people I meet to follow her on social media for a week to get a fuller understanding of who she is. Of course I'm not asking anyone to agree with her political beliefs but to deny her passion for making a difference is unjust and wrong. People immediately tell me "well you can portray anything via social media" - she spends hours per week sometimes just explaining the rules, regulations, processes, etc of the House of Representatives just to educate her followers. I could go on, but the point is she absolutely does care about making a difference for good. It's all to easy to believe the opposite when we have differing political views, "I don't agree with Jeremy Corbyn, therefore he must be a terrorist sympathizer / antisemite". I am not exempt from this perspective, it is increasingly difficult to navigate through the barrage of political opinions and beliefs through every form of media we consume to get an accurate picture of who our leaders / politicians really are and what they actually stand for.
If I had to place more blame in either the system or the people within the system, I would blame the system. I think people are inherently good.
Anyway, thanks. I learnt things here.
AI is a subject I know very little about so I will not comment, any opinions I might offer would therefore not really be worth anything.
but on other matters...
My aversion is not directed towards power itself, but rather towards those who wield power for malevolent purposes. My discovery of evil, in the last few years, has amazingly turned me from a lifelong atheist into believing in a good God.
I believe that, while many potential good MPs may begin their political careers with noble intentions, the dynamics of party politics often compel them to conform to party lines, eroding their ability to stay true to their original principles.
"The opposite of bravery is not cowardice, but rather conformity." Rollo May
(I would, however, actually suggest these good potential MPs are weened out in the selection process, the selection process looks for yes men)
Additionally, I believe you are right, it does takes a certain type of person to be an MP. It is observable that the typical MP does not necessarily reflect the broader population, as the role tends to attract individuals who may not have the where-with-all to excelled in business and sadly too often demonstrate, I repeat, sociopathic tendencies. It seems this particular personality profile appears to be drawn to the field of politics. The dark triad is pasted all over them.
Regrettably, the politician you have chosen to commend is, in many, many respects, a less than ideal candidate for any sort of praise. It is advisable to undertake thorough research on this seemingly charismatic individual. Her charm, it appears, played a pivotal role in securing her position, as she essentially auditioned for her current role in Congress. It is noteworthy that she openly acknowledges that it was her brother who signed her up for the audition. (I would recommend searching for the video where Alexandra Rojas, the Executive Director of the Justice Democrats, elucidates the process of this casting call.) AOC is an actress!!!
Prior to assuming her congressional role, she had not pursued a traditional political career by working on the campaign trails of established politicians to gain political experience. Instead, she had been employed as a bartender in a restaurant. It is likely that AOC is being directed and controlled by Zack Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti, associated with organizations Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats. These individuals have aspirations of what they might describe as benevolent dictatorship… communism would work if they were in charge… NOT!!!
AOC is a scripted and produced puppet of the Justice Democrats. AOC is merely their branding – a very pretty cover on a malevolent book… if you think she’s responsible for a single one of her social media posts you are frankly deluded.
AOC self-identifies as a democratic socialist. It is worth noting the historical connection between this ideology and the early communist movement in Russia. The initial name of the first communist political party in Russia, of which Lenin was a member, was the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. The shared nomenclature between democratic socialism and the early Russian communist movement holds historical significance, inviting further exploration of the evolution of political ideologies and their nomenclature.
AOCs controllers, as I’m sure she’s not clever enough to realise, don’t just want full blown Marxism they want to heap in a whole load of social justice on top… Hell on Earth!!!
Have you seen AOC when she is forced to go off script… embarrassing… and she debates no one, she is 100% an actress.
Two worthy acting roles were her photos at the border and her fainted terror on J5… Pathetic!!!
Exley and his team employ a strategic and assertive approach in their political activities. Their tactics involve the fielding of socialist candidates who outwardly present themselves as Republicans in Republican primaries during low-turnout elections. This approach results in the emergence of candidates who, despite being positioned as Republicans on the ballot, carry socialist endorsements. In these elections, many Republican voters may simply mark the box designated for the "R" without realizing that they are effectively voting for a candidate backed by socialist ideals. This method can be likened to a bait-and-switch strategy, constituting a form of electoral deception. (There are available videos where Exley discusses this approach, referring to it as his "hack" of the system.)
It's important to note that Zack Exley has authored a book titled "Rules for Revolutionaries." Although I have not personally read this book, I am aware that it draws inspiration from the work "Rules for Radicals." by Saul Alinsky. Which I have read… the dedication for that book is interesting. The dedication reads: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
…and please don’t get me started on AOC and the Green New deal!!!
Corbyn falls foul of the not being able to criticize the Israeli government agenda. I used to like him because I thought he was more principled, even if I did not agree with a lot of what he said, then he became party leader and the principles seemed to fly out the window. (I think his brother Piers is great)
Navigating the intricate landscape of politics can be an exceptionally challenging endeavour, if not, in some perspectives impossible. (I believe that is by design) This complexity arises from the multifaceted nature of politics, often characterized by a myriad of competing interests, hidden agendas, and the perception of a facade in which the true motivations of political actors are not always transparent or apparent.
I share the belief that, at their core, people tend to have intrinsic goodness. However, it is also observed that individuals can sometimes be naive or susceptible to manipulation, primarily because of a lack of vigilance in conducting their own research and critical thinking. Laziness or complacency can indeed make individuals more vulnerable to being influenced or misled by external factors, such as misleading information or persuasive rhetoric. It underscores the importance of fostering a sense of personal responsibility and an active engagement with information and critical thinking.
Your response detailing your opinion on AOC was very disheartening to me, but not at all unexpected to be honest. It makes me sad that you have such distain for her as your views are clearly that of the US right wing and not your own. I think it is you who needs to “undertake thorough research” on her and not me. Before I go into detail on your politicized assassination of her character / history let me first ask a question on how MPs or representatives be chosen; would you rather a) they be chosen from the community they live in and clearly have a passion for or b) have never been to said community but are selected by their party seemingly because they are an Oxford educated / ex-Goldman Sachs / married to a billionaire type person? What would align closer with the principles of permaculture? Rishi Sunak is choice b). I’m not saying you’re all for that choice, but what is better for the community? Be honest.
Now let us examine your disgusting takedown of AOC:
- “Her charm, it appears, played a pivotal role in securing her position” – um, yes. Politicians kinda need it nowadays.
- Her brother signed her up. Yes. What’s wrong with that? It’s not illegal. Audition? Definitely not. She was picked because of her background and what she represented. More on that later.
- “not pursued a traditional political career” / “employed as a bartender in a restaurant” – so you think people who work as bar tenders / waitresses should not be politicians? How disgusting. Do you have a daughter? I’m guessing you must have a family member who at one point worked as a lowly server in the hospitality industry. Would you tell them they are not worthy / capable of becoming anything in life because of that? Also note that Sunak worked as a waiter in an curry house - should he resign immediately? Or do you have different opinions on what men and women are capable of? And let’s dig a little deeper here; AOC worked in a bar because she was helping her family pay medical bills. Problem with that? I think that is extremely honourable.
- “It is likely that AOC is being directed and controlled by Zack Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti” – key word there is “likely”. Your whole hatred and assassination of this woman basically comes down to “likely”. That is laughable. Maybe try and prove it. But you can’t. It is your belief. Your sentence should read “I believe that AOC is being directed and controlled by Zack Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti”. Give me evidence.
- “if you think she’s responsible for a single one of her social media posts you are frankly deluded” – why are you so full of hate? Like I said in my previous reply, follow her for a week. And how can she not be responsible for all the LIVE social media posts she does? Just last week she did a live Q&A on student debt forgiveness and how you can potentially claim it and the procedures (this is not about the policy). You cannot fake LIVE Q&A. Follow her. You won’t. She is a young, social media savvy person. Get used to it old timer.
- “historical connection between this ideology and the early communist movement in Russia blah blah” – I do not care. She works for the good of her community. You’re starting to sound like the type of person who when called a conspiracy theorist retorts with “well the CIA coined that phrase blah blah”. Irrelevant – if the shoe fits then it’s right, I don’t need a history on shoemaking.
- “AOCs controllers, as I’m sure she’s not clever enough to realise”. Well let’s take a look at her background, you know the bits you accidentally forgot to mention. What about her being an intern for Senator Ted Kennedy during college, the same college she graduated from with two degrees. She launched Brook Avenue Press, a now-defunct publishing firm for books that portrayed the Bronx in a positive light. She worked as an organizer for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2016. Now tell me again how she’s not intelligent enough or how she has “not pursued a traditional political career by working on the campaign trails of established politicians to gain political experience”. Just admit you’re wrong on these points. Compare her to Sunak’s background.
- “Have you seen AOC when she is forced to go off script… embarrassing… and she debates no one, she is 100% an actress.” – give me an example. This is an easy win for you. And why do you think politicians have to debate people? I cannot stand the modern debate style politics, just tell me your beliefs / manifesto. It should not be a verbal boxing match to decide who gets elected. With that said, you can search for and watch AOCs 2018 primary debate against Crowley on NY1.com. It was more of an interview with both candidates admittedly but for the next actual scheduled debate Crowley did not turn up as he knew he was outmatched by AOC.
- “Two worthy acting roles were her photos at the border and her fainted terror on J5… Pathetic!!!” – SHOCK: politician poses for political pictures!! She is definitely the first to do that!! But you’re wrong anyway, she always talks about immigration and protecting human rights of other human beings. And she has also been heavily criticized lately for NOT visiting the border. Do you get it? I’m thinking no.
I am thoroughly repulsed by your takedown of AOC. It reads as a party political broadcast by the US rightwing. Did you copy your response from Breitbart? The way you twist the facts to massage your own beliefs is fascinating and frightening to me. The whole “Justice Democrats” thing is not an issue. They certainly had a hand in AOC getting elected, but what is the issue really? I see it as a talent contest and the cream always rises to the top (and as I have proved, she was absolutely qualified to be a politician). Your argument against it is that it’s not the traditional way to elect politicians. But that is the point. It is aiming to get real people elected, those who like AOC thought that a career in politics was only for the rich. And only for those that get their funding from oil companies, or from pharma companies, or from gun companies, etc. And just because you are helped to the stage by a group does not mean you are beholden to them for the rest of your life. I bet you are one of those people who thinks that the WEF Young Global Leaders are “infiltrating” cabinets around the world because of Schwab’s regrettable use of words in his comment? I went on a Microsoft training course 15 years ago for two days, do you think Satya Nadella thinks he has “infiltrated” Google now I work for them? I get it, you don’t like AOCs politics, but to take down her as a person is truly disgusting. I hope you do not have a daughter or if you do you treat her with more respect than you do to this lady.
I understand your desire to maintain the focus on specific areas of my blog, however, I want to try to keep all conversations in the permaculture world. Let's pivot back to that subject.
Concerning the divergence in our conversation, I appreciate your points and the weaknesses you've identified in my arguments, though i feel equipped to better defend my position, I just don't want to debate you here on in this space. Regarding your perspective on AOC - you can maintain your belief that she is genuine in her actions and I will continue to consider her best characterized as a "fraud/puppet/actress." It's clear you hold onto your perception, despite my warnings, and I respect your stance. I want to clarify that when you used the term "hatred," it was the end of our conversation, your asumption wnet too far on this matter, there is no hate in my heart, just sadness for the world.
I'm returning to the essence of the work on permaculture and its potential to shape the world positively, I'd be eager to explore how this philosophy can offer sustainable solutions, foster environmental stewardship, and potentially influence broader societal changes. If you're open to it, let's delve deeper into this impactful subject.
I'm sure we can have many more agreeable conversations in this realm.
One thing that does interest me is you describing yourself as an anarchist. Would you actually want those ideals widely accepted / followed? To me a few anarchists scattered around here and there is no problem, but if it were widely followed that would possibly effect people who rely on regular forms of Government. Does an anarchist believe in technological advancement? I may be wrong but it seems like anarchy, if widely accepted, would not enable us to progress as a society.