Should protesters respect private property?

[John Edward Mercier]

I find it odd one minute reading a Tolstoy post explaining the victim mentality of the Indians as being that which binds them. Then the next reading obvious failures in logic.

What would make one think that people that work for government, or corporations, are any different than those that work for mom-pop operations or are self-employed.

[dalebert]

What would make one think that people that work for government, or corporations, are any different than those that work for mom-pop operations or are self-employed.

They're really not. We've screwed up everyone's notion of morality. People think "legal" means "right". Corporations have power because power is for sale as long as we have coercive government and they're pursuing their self interest in that environment and with screwed up context of right and wrong.

Reminds me of the joke- why does a dog lick himself "down there". Because he can.

[dalebert]

I have called them on the phone to discuss how immoral they are. I've written them letters. Now, they won't even talk to me when I call, but ... no charges yet. I guess I'm not high profile enough to harass.

They want to fight the legal battle, not the moral one, particularly if it's a potentially very public moral battle. They can always win the legal ones because they get to make the rules.

[srqrebel]

Quite true that true liberty has never existed, at least since the beginning of civilization.

However, when this paradigm shift is underway, how do you propose to deal with the inevitable violence that is initiated by those who don't wish to go along with the shift—those in power who stand to lose it as true freedom is finally realized? Such aggression must be defended against, no?

If you want peace—a just and free peace—prepare to defend it.

Caleb did a really superb job of articulating the big picture.  I get the distinct impression that he has either fully undergone this paradigm shift, or is in the process of it, as I am.

In response to your question, J'raxis:

I predict that if the presentation is properly engineered, in harmony with human nature -- and that is my goal -- every individual encountering this presentation will actually be swept along by the natural emotional and rational appeal of this superior paradigm.  Even most of those who are currently employed by the AMOG will personally realize spectacular personal benefit from it.  Only a small number of "elite" parasites will stand to lose -- the viral spread of the new paradigm among their puppets will effectively leave them powerless to the point of utter insignificance.

The real danger during the transition period arises from those who simply ignorant of the new paradigm -- whether employed by the AMOG or not.  Such aggression must indeed be minimized, from the perspective of rational self-interest.

Those who have completed the paradigm shift, instinctively understand that violence itself violates the self-dominion of the conscious individual: No exceptions, ever.  The notion of eye for eye is an irrational attempt to legitimize violence under certain conditions, which constitutes the very essence of the old, faulty paradigm.

Anyone who has fully undergone this paradigm shift, rejects all violence at all times.

Now the question remains: How does one defend oneself against violence from those who are still operating under the old paradigm?

First, one must reframe the issue:  The solution is protection, not defense.  Under the new paradigm, only peaceful steps to avoid and/or mitigate violence are acceptable, i.e. laying low, withdrawing all values from those who violate one's sovereignty, etc.  Resorting to violence would constitute reverting to the old paradigm, which is virtually impossible once one has fully undergone this shift.

As I have mentioned before on this forum, I am still in the process of completing this paradigm shift.  I'm not exactly sure where it is coming from, but I do know that it is a very real, virtually indescribable, exhilarating experience.  I feel as if I am being swept along into a vortex of rationality.  Being atheist, it seems almost irrationally mystical that such a thing could even occur, but I cannot argue with my own experience.

It is instructive to note that the one issue that I literally resisted with every ounce of intellect I could muster, is the idea that violence conducted in "self-defense" is in itself a violation of the sovereignty of the conscious individual.  The inexorable pull of this paradigm shift, both rational and emotional, has finally succeeded at breaking down my resistance to this concept, to the point where I at least feel comfortable articulating it.

[Caleb]

You know, srqrebel, I think you summed up nicely how I feel about the whole thing. Trying to explain pacifism rationally feels like it is missing the point. It's not that it can't be understood rationally, it's that the rational is on what is, I think, a lower plane, so that it's always like trying to describe color to a blind man. It truly has to be experienced.

Trust me, it was a long way for me to go, personally, because as Russell will tell you when I first moved to NH, my main focus was "equal justice for all", and defense played a big part of that. Leo Tolstoy changed my world, but I think it is only because I was ready to start grasping what he said.

If anyone wants a primer in Leo Tolstoy, I used to recommend the last chapter of "The Kingdom of God is Within You", but I always felt that something was missing if that's what people did, because the last chapter is a summation, but it seems like it is an incomplete summation and you almost have to read the whole book to really understand where Tolstoy is coming from. "Letter to a Hindu" is probably the best summation of Tolstoy's beliefs in a really short form. I read it yesterday again, and it is very powerful, because Tolstoy makes this same point that I think really won me over once I internalized it:  Any rationalization of force, any at all, and you have legitimized "might makes right". There is no other way around it. Pacifism is true freedom. But it must be experienced.

[Caleb]

I find it odd one minute reading a Tolstoy post explaining the victim mentality of the Indians as being that which binds them. Then the next reading obvious failures in logic.

What would make one think that people that work for government, or corporations, are any different than those that work for mom-pop operations or are self-employed.

huh? Are you reading the same conversation I am? Who said that people who work for corporations are different/nastier than people who work for mom and pops? I work for a large corporation myself, so it wasn't me insinuating that. I do tend to think that as people come to know their neighbors, they will end up supporting mom and pops rather than the corporate counterparts because they will know and have relationships with the proprietors. Also, some corporations are just downright mean because of the whole "acting in the best interests of our shareholders" bs that they try to pull, but as people become aware of this, they will naturally boycott these types of businesses, and large corporations that no longer receive government money, government "contracts", and government privilege will probably not be able to compete any longer. My company, for instance, while not receiving any direct government subsidies, does receive a large government contract, as well as government privilege. I wonder how competitive my company will be once people stop funding the government.

[Caleb]

I have called them on the phone to discuss how immoral they are. I've written them letters. Now, they won't even talk to me when I call, but ... no charges yet. I guess I'm not high profile enough to harass.

They want to fight the legal battle, not the moral one, particularly if it's a potentially very public moral battle. They can always win the legal ones because they get to make the rules.

Yes. They know they can win the legal battles. But they don't like discussing our common moral obligation to stop funding terror. I like to ask them at what point a person living in Germany should have stopped paying taxes to support Hitler. Usually that gets a long silence, which I usually let sit a moment before breaking it with, "I think I would be guilty before God if I funded the fascist government we have in place now. In your opinion, should I obey you or God?"

I also think that they are trained very well to discuss common tax protester arguments. They are not trained to discuss morality, so when you steer the discussion that way, you end up talking to a human being rather than talking to an IRS collector.

[Jacobus]

I like to ask them at what point a person living in Germany should have stopped paying taxes to support Hitler.

+1

I love this thread.  Please continue.

[John Edward Mercier]

I find it odd one minute reading a Tolstoy post explaining the victim mentality of the Indians as being that which binds them. Then the next reading obvious failures in logic.

What would make one think that people that work for government, or corporations, are any different than those that work for mom-pop operations or are self-employed.

huh? Are you reading the same conversation I am? Who said that people who work for corporations are different/nastier than people who work for mom and pops? I work for a large corporation myself, so it wasn't me insinuating that. I do tend to think that as people come to know their neighbors, they will end up supporting mom and pops rather than the corporate counterparts because they will know and have relationships with the proprietors. Also, some corporations are just downright mean because of the whole "acting in the best interests of our shareholders" bs that they try to pull, but as people become aware of this, they will naturally boycott these types of businesses, and large corporations that no longer receive government money, government "contracts", and government privilege will probably not be able to compete any longer. My company, for instance, while not receiving any direct government subsidies, does receive a large government contract, as well as government privilege. I wonder how competitive my company will be once people stop funding the government.

It went from your post on Tolstoy to J'raxis posting 'In my original post, I was imagining a situation where those opposing us would be a small minority—specifically the people who work for government or large corporations who stand to lose their power and wealth.'
I find that people have a tough time with the concept that everyone works for themselves, but in the end someone else. They tend to think in a very rigid format.

[J’raxis 270145]

What I would worry about is that the government will begin to defend itself long before they've lost all their lackeys.

It's true that when the government criminals are engaged in stealing from the people, that they'll only go after easy targets. However, I would think that when they're in the mode of protecting what they've already stolen, they'd be a lot more vicious. In their own minds, it would be self-defense.

They don't feel vulnerable enough to overreact, imo.  By the time they realize that they are in trouble and that their power is gone, it will be too late.

For some reason, Revelation 18 keeps popping in my head, because I think the whore of Babylon's attitude is so strikingly similar to the government's:

Since in her heart she says, 'I sit as a queen, I am no widow, and mourning I shall never see.' For this reason her plagues will come in a single day, death and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire.

Since their control rests in their perceived legitimacy, the more they try to tighten their grip, the more their power will slip through their fingers.

Or, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Let's hope they're too prideful to notice us until we've passed that point of no return.

[srqrebel]

Let's hope they're too prideful to notice us until we've passed that point of no return.

The more I understand the new paradigm, the more I am convinced that we are way closer to that point than you would think -- certainly closer than they think

OTOH... it is always prudent not to underestimate the opponent.

[srqrebel]

Since their control rests in their perceived legitimacy, the more they try to tighten their grip, the more their power will slip through their fingers.

This is the essence of my refusal to direct my resources at getting them to loosen their grip.  Even if "successful", it only serves to reinforce their perceived legitimacy in the eyes of the reactionary masses, ultimately increasing their power and longevity.

I want to wake up the masses, thereby rendering the parasites impotent.

[Caleb]

If you are ready for it, menno, you might try 30 minutes per day of silent directed meditation on these archetypes. (As opposed to transcendental style meditation which seeks to clear your mind.) But be aware, if you seek out the good, the evil WILL find you. So be prepared to deal with it. It is very powerful and can be overwhelming. If you do it, think in symbols, not words. If a word comes into your mind, push it away and refocus on symbols. Your heart will tell you which symbols to use. Let it flow, but don't get in over your head.

[srqrebel]

My guess is I am not ready for it -- even though I am comfortable going way outside the box, this sounds awfully irrational to me.

Yet I am aware that the further "outside the box" you get, the more bizarre reality becomes.  One of my most influential mentors, the late Dr. Frank R. Wallace, called it the realm of the "weirder than weird".

[Caleb]

Not irrational at all. Your mind is like an iceberg. 5% of it above water (your conscious part) 95% of it below water (the subconscious). The subconscious part doesn't speak English. It speaks symbols. Which is why your dreams are always in symbol form, that's your subconscious talking. Your subconscious is also the main reason why you make decisions, which your conscious mind (ego) then tries to find an excuse to justify. With such meditation, you empower your ego to assert control over your subconscious. Your subconscious will fight back for control though. (Hence the scary part).  In another post you said that most people think at the emotional level, but some of us are directed by the rational. I would say that almost all of us (including those of us who think we are acting *rationally*) are controlled by our subconscious. You sound like you are ready to face being one of those who isn't.