Is it just me, or has there become more depth to our conversations lately? I've read some seriously thought-provoking stuff over the last few days, and that's exactly the way I like it.
AG 1969, Argentus Maximus, Ancientmoney, Green Lantern, Jim, and gold way, have made thoughtful contributions to a particular topic,
and I myself, have largely just shared the truth as I know it, from multiple perspectives, as it is a topic of interest for me.
Let's just say, that I am learning to develop my own personal sovereignty, and you guys have been a massive help.
Many of my posts are just a way of externalizing a fertile imagination, simple thoughts which seem interesting enough to share with others.
Considering the topic, and considering the fact that we all live in a shared reality, keeping certain ideas to myself would ultimately be destructive, since keeping highly relevant knowledge withheld from humanity is pretty much what has gotten us to this point in history.
Thank you for engaging with me in this discussion, I know that the time and effort you put into your posts was extraordinary, and yes, there is much we agree upon.
In fact, finding a distinction in which we disagree, has become a rarity, so I figured I would exploit this one to the max.
I am also quite grateful for everyone else who participated.
As far as Einstein's unified field theory is concerned, according to Joseph P Farrell, he published one in 1928 that was actually engineerable on a workbench,
in that time, space, gravity, and tapping into the zero point field could all be readily accomplished.
Since the powers that be had determined that such knowledge should be permanently withheld from humanity, to maintain their vast power differential, Einstein had to rewrite his theories, so that instead of a workbench, a black hole would be required. I originally thought that E equals MC squared was incorrect, but only as it is interpreted in the mainstream.
It took a considerable amount of time spent with a man who is far more knowledgeable on these things than I am, to explain and correct the misinterpretations, so that it actually was not only true, but made complete sense.
Like Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein found himself greatly limited in what he could actually publish. So Albert played the game, and Nicola never did.
One became the worlds most renowned scientist, while the other was literally erased from the historical record.
Very similar occurrences have been repeated many, many times throughout history.
You say: "You can’t build a system that defies the laws of nature.” Well, free will determines that you can do whatever you damn well please. Such a system exist all around us. And we will probably all suffer the consequences for such incredible violations of natural laws. Yeah, the imaginary sky daddy is either really pissed off, or karma sucks.
You say " Anarchy is really a human construct of the mind “.
And subservience to authority isn’t?
That's exactly what it is!
Before somebody dreamt up a megalomaniacal authoritarian, genocidal imaginary sky daddy, why would anyone conceptualize a world with rulers?
It's not a coincidence that all of our earthly rulers model themselves after this incredibly malevolent concept.
Why do you assume that the "human condition" requires a belief in authority, when I can just as easily assert that such a belief has caused the "human condition"?
So we are left with your reality of permanent human slavery as your reality, and my anarchy as nothing but a human construct of my mind?
You do realize of course, I could effectively argue that completely in the opposite direction. Belief in authority is the aberration, a man-made construct of the mind, an incredibly cultish and dangerous superstition.
Anarchy is the natural order. If you'd like evidence to authority being an aberration, and little more than a hopelessly failed human experiment, just take a look around you sometime.
Take the time to imagine a world without rulers, and without slaves. Stop thinking that the movie “The Purge" is anything other than pure propaganda. The belief that people hold, that not having any rulers is synonymous with chaos, is also pure propaganda.
People who voluntarily interact with each other, generally get along quite well. It's only when a terrorist organization known as government descends upon them, that chaos becomes the norm.
By the way, if I am ignoring a half a dozen principles,
When you get around to it, maybe you could enumerate them for me. The human condition is an effect of authoritarianism, not a principle.
I don't mind having leaders who are principled, and can share those principles, it's when they become dictators, who rule through force and terror that I have issues with them. That's what makes them a government.
I'm curious about your references to "the middle line”. Is that like the "proper balance" between good and evil?
I can cite the principle of rhythm, which would by definition, mean that very, very little time would ever be spent on the middle line.
Well, I don't think anything actually works like that. And why would we want it to? Only partial enslavement? Only partial servitude?
That would dictate a 50% tax rate, (pure theft and waste) which is exactly what we have now. Hardly something worth striving for.
Argentus Maximus once stated that human history cycles between theocratic dictatorships, and secular dictatorships, as if this is some kind of cycle.
They are just flip sides of the same coin. Both human constructs of the mind, for the purpose of human enslavement, analogous to the red team versus the blue team, when the Agenda they work for never alters.
The universe is mental, everything that exists is preceded by a thought.
Maybe we just need a new way to think about things.