Wednesday, October 13, 2010

It's Time To Evolve Ideas

"How about a good news story about drugs for once? Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather...

You see, when we talk these things through, it becomes a little clearer doesn’t it? That’s called logic and it’ll help us all evolve and get on the fucking spaceships and get outta here...

Folks: It's time to evolve ideas. You know, evolution didn't end with us growing thumbs. You do know that, right? Didn't end there. We're at the point, now, where we're going to have to evolve ideas. The reason the world is so fucked up is we're undergoing evolution. And the reason our institutions, our traditional religions, are all crumbling, is because … they're no longer relevant. They're no longer relevant. So it's time for us to create a new philosophy and perhaps even a new religion, you see. And that's okay 'cause that's our right, 'cause we are free children of God with minds who can imagine anything, and that's kind of our role."

----------------------------------------

Even though the late great Bill Hicks summed up the matter quite succinctly and satisfactorily, my take on evolving ideas can be elucidated a bit further in reference to the previous perspectives developed here. The last two posts describe postponing judgment in the case of absolutes, favouring the idea that these mono-logical mental commitments aren't worth the electrolytes expended on their consideration, and that it's about high time for something better than a world 'run by money.'

An idea I'm working on goes something like this: given the current status of our technological development, and, in my opinion, sufficient conditions to provide individuals and communities with the means of producing their sustenance, a political situation allowing for a transitional period between statism and volountarily generated social arrangements is a realistic enough concept for me. The culture we're producing is not in our overall best interest, however, intelligent utilization of the means at hand could point to a more sustainable future.

Let's take for instance the shitty fuckin economy that everyone's blithering about these days. It is, inherently, integrally, and overall a for-profit venture wherein everyone runs around trying to make more money (individuals and nation-states alike) while the entirety is governed by a minority of select interests. People bitching about relatively isolated cases, as in, their own, while the possibility of any situation other than the current gets subsumed by the workload involved in living as a slave. By not challenging the overall status quo, our inviolable human right, we acquiesce to the world-wide slavery of dollar-chasing that sucks up all of our creative freedoms that might otherwise be expressed.

Since the point I'm trying to make here is that a transition to a better situation is not only necessary but possible too, I'll get right to it. A slight understanding of the 'freeman-on-the-land' perspective might help a bit, but my post on The Call, Anarchy, and 'The Party,' sum up well-enough my feelings on statism, which is exactly what I'm proposing we transition from.

Statism: doctrine that holds the 'corporations' people identify as 'Nation-States' to be sovereign entities, and that the 'citizens' who've tacitly rescinded their god-given sovereignty to be reclassified as operational chattel for monetary consideration and not the freely unique flesh-and-blood children of god.

That this is the unquestioned dominant paradigm remains unacceptable to my taste. Instead, why not have an option out? Well, that threatens global hegemony and control for the elites, and is therefore out of the question. But what if enough people demanded it? That's the one thing, I think, that the powers-that-be are really afraid of, and I have a proposition to make. It starts like this:

A Universal Declaration of Intent, in which is stated an outline for common law contractual arrangements, an inherent human right, whereby the five-word maxim: 'cause no harm or loss' can be held to it's full potential. (This is an idea I'm whole-heartedly working on and will develop here further when I've got it better worked out in my head.)

This idea includes that the individual no longer consents to governance, to govern or be governed, and accepts a citizenship-severance package from the appropriate government being severed. This conditional acceptance in no way can include contractual arrangements with the previously governing body, as the fraudulent relationship between fictitious corporate entities (persons and states alike) ends with the severing of citizenship, thus establishing individual sovereignty.

The severance package might be something like this:

A parcel of land, that, by a reasonable scientific measure can support the number of individuals staking their claim.

An energy infrastructure appropriate to the conditions of the environment to provide sustenance.

Seeds and maybe basic livestock.

And, most importantly, the recognition that the human beings involved are no longer subject to the previous governmental structure.

------------------

Well, that's the start of the idea... I guess that's what a blog is for, so that I can develop my ideas conditionally before fully worked out, and still try to communicate them with my peers. (taht's you...)

As an adieu:

Thank you NWO for providing me with the opportunity to recognize the fallibility of your enterprise and the capacity to realize my inner-experience as a freely creative enterprise, that, if nurtured and developed by my healthy perspectives, can eventually come to fruition in my external experience of life. I accept this parcel of land on the conditions that outlined in the Universal Declaration of Intent. No longer will you, as institution, have any dealings with me, as individual. Peace...

2 comments:

  1. But what keeps me, the individual, not governed from coming to your plot of land and killing you and taking your possessions?

    ReplyDelete
  2. that's the question, isn't it?

    can enough people live in a way that shows others it's not necessary to kill one another?

    will people who don't need to steal to eat still steal?

    Will people who can fulfill their lives in any way they want, so long as they don't infringe on others, infringe on others?

    Whose possessions are we talking about? Who is the individual? Does the false corporation called the nation state own the land? Or maybe it's 'the crown' who owns all the possessions...

    You see, anything that is registered, like cars and land, all belongs to the crown. We already live on stolen land that doesn't belong to us and there are people ready to commit violence to keep this order in line. The anarchy I'm proposing doesn't condone this violence. An honest individual won't recognize violence as an appropriate mode of conduct for operating in an evolving manner.

    Thanks for your question, Anonymous.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete