Man, I miss out on that conversation. (Substack comments section is not really that text-friendly)
I have a lot to say about this, since this hits many vectors that I have explored for years…
So, let me start with this from MB
*2. Argues that recognizing the existence of a “common enemy” helps maintain “unity” in a group.*
This is factually truth, we are hardwired for this. Max talks about this on the book The Social Singularity.
“As science journalist Sharon Begley points out, we team up with people according to “whether they are likely to be an ally or an enemy.” That illustrates how tribal we are. We are wired to be divided.” https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.251541498
But I would like to bring forward a psychological and sociological interpretation of this method that is creating Unity through Division.
A long time ago I read this from the book “The Loneliness Epidemic” by Teal Swan. “When you want to create certain degree of closeness and connection with someone you can do it at the expenses of a third person, you can start to trash talking on their back (of the 3th person). Once you have a secret with this second person, by necessity, that third person is being excluded, creating a sense of closeness between you and the second person”. This is not the exact quote but I bring it here because, at it’s core, it’s creating unity through division. (Something I want to elabore further later)
Now I want to go back to point 1 by MB.
### 1. Believes it's important to identify adversaries who manipulate systems to take advantage of others—especially as so many seem unaware of this.
I agree 100%. And I say it for reason… here is a quote I stumble upon on TikTok, it caused me to have a few minutes of existencial crisis while processing it… Take it easy.
**“The idea that vengeance against evil makes you just as bad as the evil you are taking up arms against feels very much like something the bad guys would make up and spread across popular culture to make sure we don't shove their head in a guillotine, just saying”**
So... We might be dealing with a massive psy-op directed by sociopaths for centuries to keep the rest of the world from taking revenge against them...
(Check the video "The world’s biggest problem? Powerful psychopaths." | Brian Klaas)
Whether we are being bamboozled by a psy-op or not, I see sociopathic behavior as deeply destructive to social orden a cohesion. It just happens to be that 4% of the world’s population happens to be born with that “trait”. (I’m just recalling, not sure of the actual number but Jordan Peterson talked about it. “Dark Triads”…)
Sadly, the social system/social technology called POLITICS, when used at larger scale than the Dunbar number, brings forth the worst out of people. It turns them into Machiavellians and sociopathic.
So, we need to do something with them, at least in big cities. Creating social systems that decentralized power and don’t allow this kind of people into the higher echelons of power. I think destroying single point of convergence might destroy the incentives that attract this type of people. Using an AI to circumvent the need to have someone in charge. Rules without Rulers
### 5. Believes ignoring the perpetrators of injustice is wrongheaded and that our adversaries are neither imagined nor contrived.
We might even need to "Hang 'Em High" so we can get the message straight. THIS BEHAVIOUR IS NOT ALLOWED HERE. Full French Revolution mode.
But I’m just digressing now.
Let’s bring it all back to the “enemies” framework. I have stumble upon the same answer in 3 different ways. Hinduism, Adler and Anime
1. **“Tat Tvam Asi”** is the famous expression of the relationship between the individual and the Absolute. As there where no division between all of us and Existence, so… how is it possible that you have an enemy?… This is a whole rabbit hole in itself. I will just leave it there for a while since this answer is taking me an entire day (crazy)
2. Chapter "ALL PROBLEMS ARE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS" (Page 60) and “LIFE IS NOT A COMPETITION”
This is something I found reading "The Courage to be dislike" by Ichiro Kimishi and Fumitake Koga. The book is a dialog that explores Alfred Adler’s ideas on psychology. And that idea is a mind-being one. I still struggle to accept it. I guess that’s why Bard’s says that is hard to think in relational-terms. Now I will just bring this extract here. It's from page 80
"> PHILOSOPHER: When one is conscious of competition and victory and defeat, it is inevitable that feelings of inferiority will arise. Because one is constantly comparing oneself to others and thinking, I beat that person or I lost to that person. The inferiority complex and the superiority complex are extensions of that. Now, what kind of being do you think the other person is to you, at that point?
>YOUTH: I don’t know—a rival, I guess?
>PHILOSOPHER: No, not a mere rival. Before you know it, you start to see each and every person, everyone in the whole world, as your enemy.
> YOUTH: My enemy?
> PHILOSOPHER: You start to think that people are always looking down on you and treating you with scorn; that they’re all enemies who must never be underestimated, who lie in wait for any opening and attack at the drop of a hat. In short, that the world is a terrifying place."
Now, I have lived that hell. Exactly as the philosopher described. When I moved out to a bigger city, the whole world became my enemy. I was not only in a new land, people there where hostile and self-centered mostly. (Peru, or shall I say Lima, has a problem called the law of the “más vivo”. It’s like getting away with a little cheating first or will be the last loser who’s everyone’s taking advantage of)
So, this brings me to Moloch and multipolar traps, I’m not sure if MB or KC are aware of this concept but it’s quite powerful. Liv Boeree and Daniel Schmachtenberger had interesting conversations around this topic. The main work was actually developed by Scoot Alexander. “Meditations on Moloch”. (I’m pretty sure we all know this one right?)
Heck. I sense Moloch is the force behind every single societal issue we have right now.
3. “You don’t have enemies. The truth is… that nobody has them. Nobody in this entire world deserves to get hurt”
This a quote from an anime called “The Vinland Saga” and has turn into a meme on the internet. But once considered along with the whole narrative. You are kind of force to recognize that war will never end unless we stop seeing each other as enemies. I highly recommend you to watch it. It’s a cathartic experience
But this then raises the question of who strikes first is the one who wins…(finite game) and an arms race start again, leading to never ending conflict.
Moloch rears his ugly face again.
So… How do you disolved animosity in the world? I will give KC kudos for this. Dispensing animosity is a Shamanic practice.
I would agree with argument 5 too. No movement’s has been successful to sell something in the negative. Being ANTI anything would probably never works because you are not standing in favor of anything. You are just “against” something. (I recall Bard and Sweeny talking about this creation of new “abject” towards which you can direct you hate and maybe realize your hatred by killing that sacrificial lamb. Julia Kristeva? I need to read more. René Girard’s scapegoat also comes to mind)
I think moral opprobrium only works on those who are more “Logos” oriented. Those who follow rules and understand their importance.
With respect, I do believe the dialogue misses the more profound issue. It is a discourse in the confines of polite Western conversation. The real issue is the existence of evil and how to deal with it. Since Genesis, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, et al, our culture has understood this. Life should be, and is at its best, a free, creative, wonderfully rewarding experience where we continually contribute to each other's lives. Nonetheless, there are always the Maos, the Hitlers, the Ayatollahs and others that must be born in mind and contended with. They never go away. We will always have enemies that must be dealt with in an adversary manner, unfortunately in some circumstances using methods as brutal as their own. Evil exists and must be confronted.
I do not wish to make a mountain out of a molehill but even in our more civilized civic and political discourse a dichotomy can be seen to exist. Take the current political dialogue where those on the hard left are committed to destroying, not just defeating, their opponents. They are adversaries, plain and simple, and very dangerous ones at that.
Sometimes positive change involves eliminating a clear and present danger.
The issues you describe engaged me for the decades that I was a consultant and educator. I dealt with workplace conflicts mostly by teaching clients how to manage their own behavior to resolve disagreements rather than my coming in and "fixing" things. However, I did spend time in front of angry groups of people, with me as the lightning rod, helping them negotiate equitable solutions.
I don't worship at one theoretical altar regarding human communication, although I do prefer some strategies over others.
I also was a participant and/or witness to a number of cause-driven movements over 50 years. Regardless of the issue or the ethics of the people involved, most of these shared what I think turned out to be a fatal flaw.
The folks rarely thought about, let alone planned for, what was going to happen after their crusade was over. Their goal was winning the war, not managing peace. And I don't recall anyone discussing how to get along with the people they were fighting with after the smoke cleared. Or what the world would look and feel like, not just for their inner circle but for the bystanders impacted by the battles.
They would dehumanize their opponents, which I believe permitted them to violate their own ethical standards in word and deed. These behaviors attracted a kind of activist who joined their cause for the rush of having enemies– any would do. Often things spun out of control as people who signed up for the opportunity to pillage, burn, and exploit the movement for money and power took over.
The most common responses I would hear when I raised the question of what's going to happen after they win were predicable: Not my job. I don't care. The end justifies the means. Collateral damage is the cost of a better world. They deserve what they get. Omelets, you know, that's how you make them.
Once I questioned a lawyer who was the counsel for an international political movement. He talked about how peaceful and spiritual it was. I asked about the end game: What happens to the people who still disagree with you after you win? (I learned that the question "And then what will happen" often garners interesting results.)
Oh, he said, they would be sent to re-education camps. Voluntary, I asked? No, he said. So, I said, you mean concentration camps? He sputtered and used jargon, in my opinion, to attempt to hide the truth. I am happy that movement mostly failed.
By chance, I became acquainted with the man who was the national standard-bearer for a cause, the go-to for media interviews and the first one at the frontlines to get arrested. We discussed an opportunity that would have served the people he cared about in very concrete ways, alleviating poverty and creating a very bright future for the young people in his community. My husband and I made calls, found good, competent people eager to get involved, and set up a meeting.
Our new acquaintance never showed up and disappeared.
I ran into him in downtown Denver several years later, He was sheepish and very apologetic. Basically he said, "I am no good at peace. I am an instigator. I love the battle. Sorry to let you down."
I will call out hurtful behavior and do my best to hold bad actors accountable. I don't consider myself a pacifist. And, at the same time, I am interested in the long game. It's not either/or.
I am interested in creation. To quote my husband Leif Smith, it takes a day to burn down a forest. That makes the headlines, not the years it takes for it to grow back.
I have pondered this issue much, especially the past 10-yrs...leaning more toward "Positive-Building' while minimizing Adversarial contrasts...likely since I was so much the reverse for decades)!
Much current 'Marketing' advocates the clarity/focus advantages of having a Real/Indentifiable enemy(s)...and point(s) of differentiation, of both vision and practice. Yet I'm undecided.
I see advantages both ways...showing your hand and playing with Transparency before the watching world. r on some (many?) occasions playing things close to the vest...and not unnecessairly alerting and riling up both our open and default rivals.
Perhaps among ourselves inwardly/in private--we are openly transparent per our "enemies" vision & practices. Wisdom and prudence, perhaps, calls for both -- but in different circumstances? That's the problem of wisdom -- knowing when and how to do either?Two verses of Proverbs seem to call for caution?
"Wisdom rest quietly in the heart of him who has understanding, but what is in the heart of fools is made known." PV 14:33
"The tongue of the wise dispenses knowledge rightly (discreetly), but the mouths of fool pour forth foolishness." PV 15:3
[Wisdom holds it's tongue in silence...while fools blabber out ALL they happen to think/imagine!]
I have long held the belief, based on observation, that in every group, organization, or power structure, there are two levels: the way things are "supposed" to work and the way things actually work. Idealists spend huge amounts of energy calling out failures to live up to the "supposed" standard, making little progress toward and kind of fix to the group or furtherance of it's goals. Pragmatists work to see how things actually get done which often takes the form of appearing to accept the system and its injustices while actually bypassing the ineffective formal structure in favor of the informal functional one. Over time (often a timeframe viewed as far too slow by the idealists), this pragmatic subversion undermines the standard and it will evolve to closer fit the pragmatic reality.
Short form: spend less time bitching about the screwed up system and more time figuring out how to get around the screwed up system.
I feel that it's true humans are more galvanized when up against an adversary but it is something we need to evolve past, is that kind of primate reactionary thinking. Underthrow seems to be working towards this type of evolution away from old ways.
Since it is impossible to arrive at consensus during debate...
During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Ross Perot observed that: "a general lack of accountability among elected officials and those in the bureaucracy is the one specific reason that the people of America suffered…. and our only means of correction is to inspect their work and hold them accountable.”
Mr. Perot went on to note that this can easily be done with computer programs.
He called it: THE ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL.
“It is only logical that it will become our Fourth Branch of Government”, he said.
Objective reality:
the voting members of the US Congress and the State Legislatures do not have enough time to read, comprehend or debate any of the laws they vote on. They vote 100 times a day, every five minutes, while in session.
Approximate absolute facts:
Every day that the Congress and Legislatures are in session 100 new bills are introduced and distributed.
The representatives are given two weeks to review the bills before they are brought up for The Vote.
Two weeks into the session they begin voting on the Laws that were previously introduced, while newer laws are introduced.
Many of these bills are in excess of two thousand pages.
The arithmetic demonstrates that the elected representative does not have the time to even read the name of the Law much less the content of it.
Since the Representatives cannot evaluate 200 thousand pages of law speak per day, they vote the way their Party advisors tell them to vote.
This demonstrates that Representative government does not exist.
Thus, they have forfeited their delegated obligations to us, The Citizens.
And the only way to prevent these over worked and fallible people from making even more tragic mistakes, from which we, and the rest of the world, might never recover is to include ourselves in the final decision making process.
The Electronic Congress
How it works:
Before a new law, tax, or expenditure can be put on the books it must first be Ratified by the Citizens.
Existing laws can be Annulled by the same super majority required to Ratify them.
This program can be applied to every level of government and will ultimately solve every problem we have.
To prevent chaos, the basic law, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, would be exempt from review.
Mr. Perot speculated that the Founding Fathers would probably have done the same had the technology been available in their day.
Just imagine:
With a new understanding we will also be able to accommodate new proposals initiated by us, The Citizens, for program and infrastructure improvements.
We, The People, could actually direct the priorities and review the progress of the major agencies like the: CDC and NIH as well as the libraries, school boards and local police departments.
If our government truly is of the people, by the people and for the people then this is the only way forward.
How to implement it:
Start here:
Dear Mr. / Madam School Board Trustee
I write to you today in a sincere effort to help you accomplish your noble reasons for seeking this office.
That is to help you facilitate the betterment of our schools for our children and young people.
To do this, I ask you to make the Board meeting agenda questions and the data points behind them available to me as well as all of the other taxpayers.
Upload the stack to a server where we can read, ratify and or annul the elements after log on.
In a perfect world each paragraph must have at least three possible answers: agree, disagree, no opinion at this time.
Direct democracy is a growing trend, and many companies offer these services:
hosting, voter receipts, and a running tally of totals for everyone to see.
In this way Madam Trustee you are assured that you will always have the strength of the community with you when making the decisions that really do effect the lives of our people.
Man, I miss out on that conversation. (Substack comments section is not really that text-friendly)
I have a lot to say about this, since this hits many vectors that I have explored for years…
So, let me start with this from MB
*2. Argues that recognizing the existence of a “common enemy” helps maintain “unity” in a group.*
This is factually truth, we are hardwired for this. Max talks about this on the book The Social Singularity.
“As science journalist Sharon Begley points out, we team up with people according to “whether they are likely to be an ally or an enemy.” That illustrates how tribal we are. We are wired to be divided.” https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.251541498
But I would like to bring forward a psychological and sociological interpretation of this method that is creating Unity through Division.
A long time ago I read this from the book “The Loneliness Epidemic” by Teal Swan. “When you want to create certain degree of closeness and connection with someone you can do it at the expenses of a third person, you can start to trash talking on their back (of the 3th person). Once you have a secret with this second person, by necessity, that third person is being excluded, creating a sense of closeness between you and the second person”. This is not the exact quote but I bring it here because, at it’s core, it’s creating unity through division. (Something I want to elabore further later)
Now I want to go back to point 1 by MB.
### 1. Believes it's important to identify adversaries who manipulate systems to take advantage of others—especially as so many seem unaware of this.
I agree 100%. And I say it for reason… here is a quote I stumble upon on TikTok, it caused me to have a few minutes of existencial crisis while processing it… Take it easy.
**“The idea that vengeance against evil makes you just as bad as the evil you are taking up arms against feels very much like something the bad guys would make up and spread across popular culture to make sure we don't shove their head in a guillotine, just saying”**
So... We might be dealing with a massive psy-op directed by sociopaths for centuries to keep the rest of the world from taking revenge against them...
(Check the video "The world’s biggest problem? Powerful psychopaths." | Brian Klaas)
https://youtu.be/BJIOLTMitK4?si=4qXiao0wcjhovlYl
---
Whether we are being bamboozled by a psy-op or not, I see sociopathic behavior as deeply destructive to social orden a cohesion. It just happens to be that 4% of the world’s population happens to be born with that “trait”. (I’m just recalling, not sure of the actual number but Jordan Peterson talked about it. “Dark Triads”…)
Sadly, the social system/social technology called POLITICS, when used at larger scale than the Dunbar number, brings forth the worst out of people. It turns them into Machiavellians and sociopathic.
So, we need to do something with them, at least in big cities. Creating social systems that decentralized power and don’t allow this kind of people into the higher echelons of power. I think destroying single point of convergence might destroy the incentives that attract this type of people. Using an AI to circumvent the need to have someone in charge. Rules without Rulers
### 5. Believes ignoring the perpetrators of injustice is wrongheaded and that our adversaries are neither imagined nor contrived.
We might even need to "Hang 'Em High" so we can get the message straight. THIS BEHAVIOUR IS NOT ALLOWED HERE. Full French Revolution mode.
But I’m just digressing now.
Let’s bring it all back to the “enemies” framework. I have stumble upon the same answer in 3 different ways. Hinduism, Adler and Anime
1. **“Tat Tvam Asi”** is the famous expression of the relationship between the individual and the Absolute. As there where no division between all of us and Existence, so… how is it possible that you have an enemy?… This is a whole rabbit hole in itself. I will just leave it there for a while since this answer is taking me an entire day (crazy)
2. Chapter "ALL PROBLEMS ARE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS" (Page 60) and “LIFE IS NOT A COMPETITION”
This is something I found reading "The Courage to be dislike" by Ichiro Kimishi and Fumitake Koga. The book is a dialog that explores Alfred Adler’s ideas on psychology. And that idea is a mind-being one. I still struggle to accept it. I guess that’s why Bard’s says that is hard to think in relational-terms. Now I will just bring this extract here. It's from page 80
"> PHILOSOPHER: When one is conscious of competition and victory and defeat, it is inevitable that feelings of inferiority will arise. Because one is constantly comparing oneself to others and thinking, I beat that person or I lost to that person. The inferiority complex and the superiority complex are extensions of that. Now, what kind of being do you think the other person is to you, at that point?
>YOUTH: I don’t know—a rival, I guess?
>PHILOSOPHER: No, not a mere rival. Before you know it, you start to see each and every person, everyone in the whole world, as your enemy.
> YOUTH: My enemy?
> PHILOSOPHER: You start to think that people are always looking down on you and treating you with scorn; that they’re all enemies who must never be underestimated, who lie in wait for any opening and attack at the drop of a hat. In short, that the world is a terrifying place."
Now, I have lived that hell. Exactly as the philosopher described. When I moved out to a bigger city, the whole world became my enemy. I was not only in a new land, people there where hostile and self-centered mostly. (Peru, or shall I say Lima, has a problem called the law of the “más vivo”. It’s like getting away with a little cheating first or will be the last loser who’s everyone’s taking advantage of)
So, this brings me to Moloch and multipolar traps, I’m not sure if MB or KC are aware of this concept but it’s quite powerful. Liv Boeree and Daniel Schmachtenberger had interesting conversations around this topic. The main work was actually developed by Scoot Alexander. “Meditations on Moloch”. (I’m pretty sure we all know this one right?)
Heck. I sense Moloch is the force behind every single societal issue we have right now.
3. “You don’t have enemies. The truth is… that nobody has them. Nobody in this entire world deserves to get hurt”
This a quote from an anime called “The Vinland Saga” and has turn into a meme on the internet. But once considered along with the whole narrative. You are kind of force to recognize that war will never end unless we stop seeing each other as enemies. I highly recommend you to watch it. It’s a cathartic experience
https://youtube.com/shorts/q-HthlYL2RU?si=W92syl5c7DKH8BFN
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4Fux4il_bXM
But this then raises the question of who strikes first is the one who wins…(finite game) and an arms race start again, leading to never ending conflict.
Moloch rears his ugly face again.
So… How do you disolved animosity in the world? I will give KC kudos for this. Dispensing animosity is a Shamanic practice.
I would agree with argument 5 too. No movement’s has been successful to sell something in the negative. Being ANTI anything would probably never works because you are not standing in favor of anything. You are just “against” something. (I recall Bard and Sweeny talking about this creation of new “abject” towards which you can direct you hate and maybe realize your hatred by killing that sacrificial lamb. Julia Kristeva? I need to read more. René Girard’s scapegoat also comes to mind)
I think moral opprobrium only works on those who are more “Logos” oriented. Those who follow rules and understand their importance.
With respect, I do believe the dialogue misses the more profound issue. It is a discourse in the confines of polite Western conversation. The real issue is the existence of evil and how to deal with it. Since Genesis, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, et al, our culture has understood this. Life should be, and is at its best, a free, creative, wonderfully rewarding experience where we continually contribute to each other's lives. Nonetheless, there are always the Maos, the Hitlers, the Ayatollahs and others that must be born in mind and contended with. They never go away. We will always have enemies that must be dealt with in an adversary manner, unfortunately in some circumstances using methods as brutal as their own. Evil exists and must be confronted.
I do not wish to make a mountain out of a molehill but even in our more civilized civic and political discourse a dichotomy can be seen to exist. Take the current political dialogue where those on the hard left are committed to destroying, not just defeating, their opponents. They are adversaries, plain and simple, and very dangerous ones at that.
Sometimes positive change involves eliminating a clear and present danger.
Best wishes,
Thank you for posting this. A small rant follows.
The issues you describe engaged me for the decades that I was a consultant and educator. I dealt with workplace conflicts mostly by teaching clients how to manage their own behavior to resolve disagreements rather than my coming in and "fixing" things. However, I did spend time in front of angry groups of people, with me as the lightning rod, helping them negotiate equitable solutions.
I don't worship at one theoretical altar regarding human communication, although I do prefer some strategies over others.
I also was a participant and/or witness to a number of cause-driven movements over 50 years. Regardless of the issue or the ethics of the people involved, most of these shared what I think turned out to be a fatal flaw.
The folks rarely thought about, let alone planned for, what was going to happen after their crusade was over. Their goal was winning the war, not managing peace. And I don't recall anyone discussing how to get along with the people they were fighting with after the smoke cleared. Or what the world would look and feel like, not just for their inner circle but for the bystanders impacted by the battles.
They would dehumanize their opponents, which I believe permitted them to violate their own ethical standards in word and deed. These behaviors attracted a kind of activist who joined their cause for the rush of having enemies– any would do. Often things spun out of control as people who signed up for the opportunity to pillage, burn, and exploit the movement for money and power took over.
The most common responses I would hear when I raised the question of what's going to happen after they win were predicable: Not my job. I don't care. The end justifies the means. Collateral damage is the cost of a better world. They deserve what they get. Omelets, you know, that's how you make them.
Once I questioned a lawyer who was the counsel for an international political movement. He talked about how peaceful and spiritual it was. I asked about the end game: What happens to the people who still disagree with you after you win? (I learned that the question "And then what will happen" often garners interesting results.)
Oh, he said, they would be sent to re-education camps. Voluntary, I asked? No, he said. So, I said, you mean concentration camps? He sputtered and used jargon, in my opinion, to attempt to hide the truth. I am happy that movement mostly failed.
By chance, I became acquainted with the man who was the national standard-bearer for a cause, the go-to for media interviews and the first one at the frontlines to get arrested. We discussed an opportunity that would have served the people he cared about in very concrete ways, alleviating poverty and creating a very bright future for the young people in his community. My husband and I made calls, found good, competent people eager to get involved, and set up a meeting.
Our new acquaintance never showed up and disappeared.
I ran into him in downtown Denver several years later, He was sheepish and very apologetic. Basically he said, "I am no good at peace. I am an instigator. I love the battle. Sorry to let you down."
I will call out hurtful behavior and do my best to hold bad actors accountable. I don't consider myself a pacifist. And, at the same time, I am interested in the long game. It's not either/or.
I am interested in creation. To quote my husband Leif Smith, it takes a day to burn down a forest. That makes the headlines, not the years it takes for it to grow back.
I have pondered this issue much, especially the past 10-yrs...leaning more toward "Positive-Building' while minimizing Adversarial contrasts...likely since I was so much the reverse for decades)!
Much current 'Marketing' advocates the clarity/focus advantages of having a Real/Indentifiable enemy(s)...and point(s) of differentiation, of both vision and practice. Yet I'm undecided.
I see advantages both ways...showing your hand and playing with Transparency before the watching world. r on some (many?) occasions playing things close to the vest...and not unnecessairly alerting and riling up both our open and default rivals.
Perhaps among ourselves inwardly/in private--we are openly transparent per our "enemies" vision & practices. Wisdom and prudence, perhaps, calls for both -- but in different circumstances? That's the problem of wisdom -- knowing when and how to do either?Two verses of Proverbs seem to call for caution?
"Wisdom rest quietly in the heart of him who has understanding, but what is in the heart of fools is made known." PV 14:33
"The tongue of the wise dispenses knowledge rightly (discreetly), but the mouths of fool pour forth foolishness." PV 15:3
[Wisdom holds it's tongue in silence...while fools blabber out ALL they happen to think/imagine!]
I have long held the belief, based on observation, that in every group, organization, or power structure, there are two levels: the way things are "supposed" to work and the way things actually work. Idealists spend huge amounts of energy calling out failures to live up to the "supposed" standard, making little progress toward and kind of fix to the group or furtherance of it's goals. Pragmatists work to see how things actually get done which often takes the form of appearing to accept the system and its injustices while actually bypassing the ineffective formal structure in favor of the informal functional one. Over time (often a timeframe viewed as far too slow by the idealists), this pragmatic subversion undermines the standard and it will evolve to closer fit the pragmatic reality.
Short form: spend less time bitching about the screwed up system and more time figuring out how to get around the screwed up system.
I feel that it's true humans are more galvanized when up against an adversary but it is something we need to evolve past, is that kind of primate reactionary thinking. Underthrow seems to be working towards this type of evolution away from old ways.
Since it is impossible to arrive at consensus during debate...
During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Ross Perot observed that: "a general lack of accountability among elected officials and those in the bureaucracy is the one specific reason that the people of America suffered…. and our only means of correction is to inspect their work and hold them accountable.”
Mr. Perot went on to note that this can easily be done with computer programs.
He called it: THE ELECTRONIC TOWNHALL.
“It is only logical that it will become our Fourth Branch of Government”, he said.
Objective reality:
the voting members of the US Congress and the State Legislatures do not have enough time to read, comprehend or debate any of the laws they vote on. They vote 100 times a day, every five minutes, while in session.
Approximate absolute facts:
Every day that the Congress and Legislatures are in session 100 new bills are introduced and distributed.
The representatives are given two weeks to review the bills before they are brought up for The Vote.
Two weeks into the session they begin voting on the Laws that were previously introduced, while newer laws are introduced.
Many of these bills are in excess of two thousand pages.
The arithmetic demonstrates that the elected representative does not have the time to even read the name of the Law much less the content of it.
Since the Representatives cannot evaluate 200 thousand pages of law speak per day, they vote the way their Party advisors tell them to vote.
This demonstrates that Representative government does not exist.
Thus, they have forfeited their delegated obligations to us, The Citizens.
And the only way to prevent these over worked and fallible people from making even more tragic mistakes, from which we, and the rest of the world, might never recover is to include ourselves in the final decision making process.
The Electronic Congress
How it works:
Before a new law, tax, or expenditure can be put on the books it must first be Ratified by the Citizens.
Existing laws can be Annulled by the same super majority required to Ratify them.
This program can be applied to every level of government and will ultimately solve every problem we have.
To prevent chaos, the basic law, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, would be exempt from review.
Mr. Perot speculated that the Founding Fathers would probably have done the same had the technology been available in their day.
Just imagine:
With a new understanding we will also be able to accommodate new proposals initiated by us, The Citizens, for program and infrastructure improvements.
We, The People, could actually direct the priorities and review the progress of the major agencies like the: CDC and NIH as well as the libraries, school boards and local police departments.
If our government truly is of the people, by the people and for the people then this is the only way forward.
How to implement it:
Start here:
Dear Mr. / Madam School Board Trustee
I write to you today in a sincere effort to help you accomplish your noble reasons for seeking this office.
That is to help you facilitate the betterment of our schools for our children and young people.
To do this, I ask you to make the Board meeting agenda questions and the data points behind them available to me as well as all of the other taxpayers.
Upload the stack to a server where we can read, ratify and or annul the elements after log on.
In a perfect world each paragraph must have at least three possible answers: agree, disagree, no opinion at this time.
Direct democracy is a growing trend, and many companies offer these services:
hosting, voter receipts, and a running tally of totals for everyone to see.
In this way Madam Trustee you are assured that you will always have the strength of the community with you when making the decisions that really do effect the lives of our people.
Vty,
Helpful Taxpayer Citizen
KC is wrong. Call a spade what it is.