zzripz said:

I have trouble with the '1%' stat. This is because over there people say that the 1 percent are the MEGA ultra rich shits who think they are calling the shots, and actually this can be graphed--I saw a video about this very recently which shows the MASSIVE disproportion of wealth going to a 1 percent. (may try and find it)
So to say only 1 percent care deeply is a bit pessimistic

A while ago on the telly, there was a documentary about this beautiful country side where I live that isn't that far from where I live, though defo not down the road

Well I heard that before 1932 this land was totally private and 'commoners' weren't allowed to walk on it etc. ONLY posh fkers shooting were

So what happened was a large group of people got togther and all went there walking and hanging out. Some got arrested , but some years later the Labour party created access to 'national parks' and that is now one of them and now all humans can rightly walk there and enjoy the landscape

So there we are, an example of people getting together. And I am for all of that. But I am alos for learning about how mind control works, and how it is used so that we police ourselves and others. One example of that is the divide and control mind control which is mind/body dualism, and which cuts us off psychologically and spiritually from the land

This is why love is central. Most people know that to bond with others love is important, and this love has a wide spectrum of potential, from care, as for a child, parent, friend, to ecstatic erotic delight. But this can also be for the land. And i think this is one of the greatest fears of those who rule us, and hence why they want us to think of our selves as robots and nature as dead and without spirit.

The very term 'robot' actually means 'slave' and 'forced labour'!

---

I don't necessarily think that it's just 1%, that is more of an arbitrary number than anything. I'm pretty sure that there are more people who care about such matter.

The problem arises is when these sorts of people are suppressed and pushed to the sideline. I can't say how many people are like this as there are a lot of people in the world and I'm pretty sure I can't go around with a survey asking everyone what they feel . That said, I can say that there IS a light growing slowly and I hope that it is not dimmed and forgotten.

It is up to people like us to be able to spread all of this information. Like in the story you told, I think the smallest idea can be passed along and can make a huge difference.

When you are able to see many sides of the dice, it is difficult to pin point exactly what is happening.

usulpsychonaut said:

The goal of an individual is to avoid paying taxes. The system is run by complete retards. http://www.investigatemagazine.com/FEB00%20Tax%20NZ.htm Retards stand over me for my money and then use my money to gang bang me. What ever one does, do not fucking vote. The sham is fucking obvious.

---

BreathlessVision said:

usulpsychonaut said:

The goal of an individual is to avoid paying taxes. The system is run by complete retards. http://www.investigatemagazine.com/FEB00%20Tax%20NZ.htm Retards stand over me for my money and then use my money to gang bang me. What ever one does, do not fucking vote. The sham is fucking obvious.

---

A lot of people are actually consumed by political apathy. Many people do not vote because they do not care. This I think is a clever technique of distraction from the real political game, it done by a whole plethora of methods and techniques which involve hypnotizing the individual into the world-view that the authority chooses.

The plan is here, not just simply to eliminate reflective/open thoughts, but to eliminate the individuality completely.

---

zzripz said:

BreathlessVision said:

usulpsychonaut said:

The goal of an individual is to avoid paying taxes. The system is run by complete retards. http://www.investigatemagazine.com/FEB00%20Tax%20NZ.htm Retards stand over me for my money and then use my money to gang bang me. What ever one does, do not fucking vote. The sham is fucking obvious.

---

A lot of people are actually consumed by political apathy. Many people do not vote because they do not care. This I think is a clever technique of distraction from the real political game, it done by a whole plethora of methods and techniques which involve hypnotizing the individual into the world-view that the authority chooses.

The plan is here, not just simply to eliminate reflective/open thoughts, but to eliminate the individuality completely.

---

Mind control has been 'tested' on animals and then the results are used on humans (and of course they get tested on to)

Animals were the first slaves. There's a great book I really recommend titled An Unnatural Order: The Roots of Our Destruction of Nature by Jim Mason. He goes into this in great depth

As I mentioned above, this evil toxic idea was further even more exacerbated when Rene Descartes, a so called 'thinker' thunk that he was 'the thinker' 'I think therefore I am' and with this rational soul dead gaze saw his and others' bodies as being machines, and animals as being machines and would torture them alive thinking their screams of pain were merely the noises of a machine!!! How truly insane is that? And yet his ideas still permeate this modern civilization. Now millions of animals are tested on for products and in the 'name of science'. No drugs can be passed and patented without they have been 'tested' on animals.

One of the tortures they have inflicted on animals is called 'learned helplessness' where they blitz animals with suffering to such an extent they completely break their spirit, and EVEN a chance to escape being electrocuted is not taken.

Well they apply that to us. One example is the political system whereby no matter who you vote for the same main shit of exploitation, wars, and so on continue. And so many people feel utterly helpless and put up with degraded lives for them and their loved ones and the degradation being done to other species and all of nature

---

That's very interesting, the major cultural developments in the 17th century - 19th century (especially the 19th century) have shaped how we as human beings are ultimately managed. We ARE managed, this is key to the totalitarian regime.

With Descartes, it's interesting that these ideas plague our society and minds. I think a major shift will be when basically our society starts to reject this notion of being 'merely a machine', to let go of that ego separation from the world (which also is another major perpetrator of all the problems in our world - ego).

I'll check out the book defiantly, need good reading material to add to my 'to-read list'

I've been listening to this lecture by Aldous Huxley recently called the Ultimately Revolution, if you haven't already heard it, it is very eye-opening. He talks about how the methods of control and power are changing in the most dramatic way with the rise of neurological experiments etc... (similar to the animal experiments you talked about).

Quote:

With Descartes, it's interesting that these ideas plague our society and minds. I think a major shift will be when basically our society starts to reject this notion of being 'merely a machine', to let go of that ego separation from the world (which also is another major perpetrator of all the problems in our world - ego).

---

I personally also question Eastern belief systems who pretend one can be 'egoless'. Their guru system is about that---about how certain 'holy men' and/or gurus are more evolved that the 'many' and have found an egoless way of being. I really do question all that. What has happened is that people following such people see them doing all kind of things that anyone with a so-called egotistical demeanor would, including abuse of his followers, even sexual abuse, and done to children also, but because they believe he has no ego he can get away with murder.
Meanwhile the guru, and or religion promise that you can transcend your 'ego' is you do their rituals which often include meditation as a central practice. IF you question the guru and/or a belief system your accused of 'clinging to your ego' and refusing to let go! In this I see the duality of 'selfless' and 'selfish'. IE instead of understanding a dynamic which includes BOTH selfish and selfless, both extremes are abstracted out, and then comes the promise/'solution' that you can become totally one-sided ..lol See the game? With eg Satanism, it is the inverse. They champion selfishness, and denigrate selflessness.

However, I am more understanding the problem is not an 'ego', as such, which is really a unique perspective, itself also subject to dynamic change, such as nature' essence is---change, but an HEROIC ego. This willful way of being is revealed in patriarchal mythology. A very ancient example is the Babylonian myth of Marduk fighting and killing the Goddess Serpent of Chaos, Tiamat. And you can see depictions in art of this mentality eg gods, angels, saints, etc often on horseback, armoured, sword raised attacking a Serpent/Dragon



Notice how most of the stories we're familiar with, ancient and modern, have this common theme of the hero defeating the monsters and getting the pretty girl at the end?

Quote:

lakefinger
1) The voters must be informed and make the correct decisions. There’s no point in giving them more influence if they can’t do these things correctly.

---

Quote:

2) The social media you mentioned are commercial actors, putting governance into the hands seems exceptionally unwise. I would assume you’re familiar with this, but it can be worth mentioning that champions of democracy complain of the concentration of democracy into commercial hands. Social media, being used for data mining and espionage, etc., do not demonstrate any ability to maintain anonymity and integrity, which are both cornerstones of governmental democracy.

---

Quote:

3) Countries with consensus-based democracies, e.g. Sweden and Norway, have critical problems with their political systems and public life as a result. Consensus is not purely negative, but in certain cases where the political system leans more in this direction, the consensus itself severely inhibits governmental change, criticism, freedom of speech and other democratic rights and processes. Consensus does not guarantee harmony and it can in fact lead to sharper conflicts and greater resentment and ideological stratification.

---

Quote:

4) Consensus can be readily manipulated before, during and after it is reached. Consensus can be manufactured and not reflect any actual consensus of the voters.

---

Quote:

5) There are many cognitive biases that complicate consensus and the community’s perception of itself. These affect voting methods and mechanisms. We have, for instance, the false-consensus effect whereby voters may misconstrue the dispositions of other voters. This has been demonstrated to tie into progressives thinking that there is much less consensus among themselves and conservatives thinking there is far more consensus among themselves, etc. This in turn skews the perception of the voting self, the voting population and the issues being voted on.

---

Quote:

6) People are manipulated by commercial interests, psy-ops, etc., and more readily manipulated the less expertise they have in a subject. Today’s government systems and the issues they face are extremely complicated. By crudely granting the voting majority more influence over their governance you are opening up for increased demagoguery, despotism and unjustified decision-making.

---

Quote:

7) Consensus is, as said above, subject to manipulation but it also susceptible to over-governance and repetition as well as imprecision by means of concealing indecision and fundamental differences. Consensus has also been documented to lead to lack of clarity in policymaking.

---

Quote:

8) In a consensus-based system the minority(ies) is(are), in effect, eliminated or blurred out.

---

Quote:

9) Countries with consensus-based (rather than e.g. negotiation-based or majoritarian) political systems tend to hover in the socially conservative range of the political scale.

---

Quote:

10) We don’t have a sufficiently complicated mechanism for dealing with consensus. Consensus itself means many things in different contexts and it must be delineated before further discussion. What kind of consensus do you need? What are the costs of consensus? How can it be maintained? To what extent do we maintain it? At what point does the need for consensus outweigh the efficiency of the system, policymaking, political coordination, etc. How do you ensure the validity of the consensus from its postulate among the voters to its implementation among government employees? How does consensus ensure that the voting population has been correctly informed, makes the correct decisions, votes in accordance with its own understanding and interests?

---

Lakefingers said:

You answered. Good job.

---

Lakefingers said:

How do you ensure that the consensus reached reflects the consensus desired by the voters?

---