Majority Rules

reply to post by Hopechest

(The Occupy movement) did show however that there are enough people, around the world, ready to get behind something and change it. They just need to figure out what they want first.

I think you're being a little optimistic. The Occupy movement was hugely popular precisely because it had no real plan of action and demanded nothing from its supporters except their attendance. There were no details over which people could disagree.

The minute you draw up a programme with specific goals, objectives and actions, people start arguing over them and splitting up into factions. Group unity collapses in the face of individual self-interest. As a member of the Tea Party movement, you will have seen it happen yourself.

reply to post by Astyanax


I suppose that is true unless the movement is something compelling. You see this in revolutions that happen around the world and throughout history, you see it with the Arab Spring. There are splinters yes but the majority seem to flow in one direction.

As for the Tea Party, they never splintered at all, as I stated, the only thing that makes you a Tea Party member, at least the ones I know, is a belief in fiscal conservatism. No other issue is on the table in regards to that so there isn't really anything to splinter.

The media portrayal of the Tea Party in a negative light led to the "movements" downfall but they still exist. Nobody has changed their views, the party just isn't unified in public anymore.

reply to post by cavtrooper7

Which is why the second amendment has such teeth and why it should.

You're talking about guns? My country is awash with guns. Every third-rate gangster and petty criminal has one. The police are all armed. The military is an obvious and ugly presence on every street corner. Polticians and politically-connected businessmen go about with AK-47-toting bodyguards.

All this has done is to raise the body count. The idea of armed citizens standing up against exploitation and tyranny is a sick joke.

...the State throughout history has been essentially an organization of a segment of the population that forsakes peaceful economic activity to constitute itself as a ruling class. This class makes its living parasitically by establishing a permanent hegemonic or “political” relationship between itself and the productive members of the population. This political relationship permits the rulers to subsist on the tribute or taxes routinely and “legally” expropriated from the income and wealth of the producing class. The latter class is composed of the “subjects” or, in the case of democratic states, the “taxpayers,” who earn their living through the peaceful “economic means” of production and voluntary exchange.

Text from A History of Money and Banking in the United States:The Colonial Era to World War II Author Murray Rothbard, intro by Joseph T. Salerno. page 26

Murray Rothbard says in The American Economy and the End of Laisseze-Faire that the ruling class is always a symbiotic oligarchy that includes the State, Academe, Big Money, and the Bureaucracies.

The church of old morphed into academe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I thank you.

You are right, corporations are owned by its customers. I urge you to view a corporation as a 'mom and pop' business for once. We'll go with McDonald's.

McDonald's sells burgers to the public to earn a profit. They're not forcing us to eat there - it's fully your choice. However, we keep coming back for more. Why? Because they KNOW how to make addictive food. What does this have to do with a mom and pop business? If it were a M.A.P business, then we wouldn't be complaining. Bottom line: we're sort of jealous. We're jealous because McDonald's is powerful and we own none of that power.

A person's ultimate goal in life is to gain power. By producing off-spring, we believe our chances of 'owning the world' is greater. We constantly hope that somewhere down the bloodline, we'll have a relative that will influence the world and carry the family name. This mentality is what influences our rebellious behaviour towards corporations.

Always remember: YOU have the power not to purchase their products, they don't have the power to stop producing their products. They simply can't afford to. I'm not defending corporations, I'm bringing a new insight to light. Please try to be as open-minded and accepting as possible. Do not play the 'attack and defend' game, but rather the 'reason and logic' game. I do enjoy a good game of proverbial chess.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

What does that mean to you? ^^
Did you choose to be programmed?
No one can deprogram their selves until they know they are conditioned (programed).
Perhaps you should watch the videos I posted.

One can only program himself. No one's forcing anyone to buy into a system they don't have to. Are people lead by some mystical invisible harness? Never. It is their choice, their motive, their accord. One can say no just as easily as one can say yes.

I would watch your videos, but first you must learn to embed them. It's really easy.

So did you not get sent to school? Did you not learn to get up and get out in the mornings? Did you not get conditioned with bells (like Pavlov's dog) at school?
Yes, the harness is invisible - so invisible that most do not see it.
You say that no one is forced to buy into a system they don't have to but you are born into the system and until you see the system you cannot escape it.
Imagine a baby being born - can the baby program itself? If the baby was left on it's own, it would not be programmed, but it would die on it's own. The baby is born and it grows in the environment it was born into - the parents are already conditioned (programmed) by the system. What choice does the baby have? Only when the baby becomes an adult and can work out what is actually going on can it then start to unravel the conditioning.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


It is essential to understand the reality of the world.
youtu.be...

reply to post by Itisnowagain

So did you not get sent to school? Did you not learn to get up and get out in the mornings? Did you not get conditioned with bells (like Pavlov's dog) at school?

Can you think of anyone who isn't subjected to this 'conditioning'? The whole point of a conspiracy is that there should be conspirators, right? If everyone is put through the same conditioning it isn't a conspiracy, it's just culture.

Yes, the harness is invisible - so invisible that most do not see it.

Most people are unconscious of the key presumptions of their culture. They are so close that they seem a part of nature. But are you sure you're not getting them mixed up? Getting up and getting out in the morning is a natural thing for most animals apart from nocturnal or hibernating ones.

You say that no one is forced to buy into a system they don't have to but you are born into the system and until you see the system you cannot escape it.

Yes, you're definitely getting culture and conspiracy muddled. You can't escape culture, by the way. You're stuck with it for life—you know what they say, 'you can take the girl out of the cornfield, but you can't take the cornfield out of the girl'.

Imagine a baby being born - can the baby program itself?

YES. Babies learn to walk, talk and a hundred other things besides, all on their own.

The baby is born and it grows in the environment it was born into

Its native culture.

the parents are already conditioned (programmed) by the system.

They share in the culture of their society.

What choice does the baby have? Only when the baby becomes an adult and can work out what is actually going on can it then start to unravel the conditioning.

You may have watched The Matrix more often than is strictly wise.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Humans are slaves to themselves, nothing besides. It's easy to blame Matrix-esque forces, but difficult to blame the ones who created them, built them and support them. None of these forces work without humans; these forces are entirely dependent on humans. The government will collapse if humans stop participating in it. Corporations will collapse if humans stop funding them. Banks will collapse if no one puts money in them.

The Majority holds the power. Each and every time we see an entity such as a corporation or government being tyrannical, we are witnessing the failure of the majority to do anything about it.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain


So did you not get sent to school? Did you not learn to get up and get out in the mornings? Did you not get conditioned with bells (like Pavlov's dog) at school?
Yes, the harness is invisible - so invisible that most do not see it.
You say that no one is forced to buy into a system they don't have to but you are born into the system and until you see the system you cannot escape it.
Imagine a baby being born - can the baby program itself? If the baby was left on it's own, it would not be programmed, but it would die on it's own. The baby is born and it grows in the environment it was born into - the parents are already conditioned (programmed) by the system. What choice does the baby have? Only when the baby becomes an adult and can work out what is actually going on can it then start to unravel the conditioning.

edit on 8-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I was sent to a public government-funded school, by your definition, conditioned to the system.

Yet, I am able to make my decisions. You can blame anybody in anything, always there is somebody to blame- the government, the corporations, the system - at the end there is only one person you can blame - Yourself.

Every decision you take is a ultimately a free choice - you have not been programmed to say "Yes". When you decide to support the corporations by buying their product, it is a free choice. The products might/might not have some addictive components, although the addiction is mild, nothing compared to stronger drugs. We can compare it with habit. Even smoking is considered a bad habit as it is too mild to be an addiction.

You may influenced by the media, although every single choice you make is a free one. You are not being forced to buy a product, you are not forced to take decisions. Every single action you make is a free choice, whether it is buying a meal from McDonalds or purchasing a bottle of Coca-Cola. When choosing between different products, you have always the option of saying "No".

Implying anything otherwise is an excuse for not taking personal responsibility for one´s actions.

reply to post by Cabin


Did you watch this video?
youtu.be...
I don't blame you if you cannot stomach it.

Great Post!!!!!

I would just like to add that it goes so much deeper than this.

It's basically a psychological disease that is behind all the crap we see. Egotism.

I'll bet you 10 crisp hundo's, if you interview the 100 C.E.O's and top Gov officials around the World, you'll find a Masochist, Detached, Egotism disorder and this is what is running the world.

Everything after that colludes to a Corporate-Fascism where this secret club of Masochists (and Sadists) all hang out together and scratch each others backs. Everything besides themselves, is open for sacrifice .....including the people, environment, food supply, air quality, health, etc etc.

I've witnessed this inner circle myself, and actually puked a little in my mouth when I realized how far this disease extends

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
The Majority holds the power. Each and every time we see an entity such as a corporation or government being tyrannical, we are witnessing the failure of the majority to do anything about it.

Great summary here, LesMisanthrope, and also a great opening post!

Yes, it is the collective of mankind that ultimately decides what happens. We are slaves to the endless propaganda, and kept in control by the latest global "religion" - unlimited consumerism with its promises of happiness for all! We want more and more and more and until we understand this mechanism and change our acts by taking our whole situation into account, we will just keep acting as separate, and basically powerless, nobodies with no real effective means to change what is actually going on.

Everyone must see that we are not separate! We are one people and through this recognition of our inherent unity that goes beyond the conceptual mind, we can act cooperatively and make real changes that might actually save our world from being destroyed more and more by extreme consumerism and all the rest of the insanity this separative presumption by everyone results in.

A mundane example - what if everyone just stopped eating all the unhealthy fast food hamburgers that MacDonalds, etc., constantly promote, especially to our little ones? Those corporations would have to adapt or go out of business. In the meantime, the destruction of the forests to make room for more and more cattle would be reduced, this would help with extreme climate change, etc. Plus our children and us may even become healthier.

The good news relative to our inherent non-separation is that we only have to notice what is undeniably staring us in the face to see that we truly are not separate. What do we arise in? We are appearing in an apparently infinite field of relatedness. We are all related - no separation is actually the case fundamentally.

This unity is our inherent condition and the more we notice this, the more this heart-recognition deepens - as does the true morality/love inherent in our non-separation. For Christians, and really everyone, this is what Jesus meant when he said to love one's neighbor as oneself. This commandment is clearly about the non-separative unity we all arise in, and the true basis for global unity and acting as a majority.

Thank you LesMisanthrope for this insightful thread.

reply to post by bb23108

The reality is more nuanced than you would have us believe. The choice is not between individual impotence and monolithic unity. The reality of human society is creative tension: confrontation and interaction between interest groups.

People who think of the world as a conspiracy of the elite against the masses (or the haves against the have-nots, or the empowered against the impotent) are usually people who cannot make the group dynamic of society work for themselves. They find it hard to get along for long with others, even those who share their interests, so they cannot function effectively as group members. Their presence, moreover, is often detrimental to the groups they do join. To say this is not to condemn them; though pretty well adjusted socially, I'm not much of a joiner myself. The world needs its loners and mavericks, takers of paths less travelled.

I have little sympathy, though, for people who blame their personal troubles and failures on nebulous conspiracies and shadowy, powerful groups. It seems absurd to me that they cannot see they are reifying a fantasy. I realise that they are often handicapped by mental problems or unhappy life histories, which may cause or contribute toward their inability to become properly socialised. Increasingly, I try to take these possibilities into account when dealing with them, for example here on Above Top Secret. Unfortunately, such people are also rarely very likeable—they tend to be sullen, rude or hostile, to hold extreme views and political stances about which they are unpleasantly confrontational, and are all too quick to take offence at any demurral, responding with verbal or even physical violence. They also tend to have little consideration for others' efforts and feelings, although they demand almost excessive consideration of their own. All this tries my patience, and sometimes I just want to give the whole selfish, self-deluded bunch a good kicking. Just because someone is crazy, it doesn't mean they aren't a jerk, too.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by bb23108

 

The reality is more nuanced than you would have us believe. The choice is not between individual impotence and monolithic unity. The reality of human society is creative tension: confrontation and interaction between interest groups.

I am not sure how much of your response is actually in reply to my post, so I am quoting above what I think your reply to my post is. The rest of your post seems more general, and I can certainly agree with much of it - though I am relatively new to ATS and have not ventured beyond the Religious and Philosophy sections, so I am not sure what to think of your general statements about many posting on ATS. (If your post was completely in response to my post, that would be good to know too.)

Regarding your first paragraph, yes, of course there has to be much done in terms of societies working together cooperatively, each speaking their own points of view, creatively working with and through various tensions/differences, etc.

I was mainly pointing out that the FOUNDATION for this to be able to occur is that people recognize that fundamentally we all arise in a non-separate indivisible field of relatedness. When mankind's essential unity (indivisible light/energy or consciousness) is noticed and valued as the essence or base-reality of our existence here, then we can more readily be on the same page relative to the many, many issues that need to be taken into account as communities, societies, nations, etc.

This recognition of our actual reality is not a matter of belief - but of noticing what is the case already.

Otherwise, we en masse are just going to continue being self-deluded, self-obsessed egos with everyone tending to have their own agendas for seeking what they think will make them happy someday, rather than being already founded in one's inherent reality-based happiness. We see where our current "logic" has gotten us so far! The current approach to life, and especially the global religion of ego/consumerism is not working - but is causing massive problems throughout the world!

Each individual to fully participate in life needs to recognize that we are not separate. When this simple noticing of our actual reality here occurs and is lived, a different approach that is more tolerant, participatory, cooperative, intelligent, not dependent on consumer-religion for happiness, etc. can be lived. Then peace is even possible.

reply to post by bb23108

If your post was completely in response to my post, that would be good to know too.

No, it wasn't, really. I was extemporising.

I was mainly pointing out that the FOUNDATION for this to be able to occur is that people recognize that fundamentally we all arise in a non-separate indivisible field of relatedness. When mankind's essential unity (indivisible light/energy or consciousness) is noticed and valued as the essence or base-reality of our existence here, then we can more readily be on the same page...

I'm not sure what a 'non-separable indivisible field of relatedness' is. Certainly we are all members of the same species, and by and large we tend to interact with people from our own local and national cultures, so there is some common ground there too.

Otherwise, we en masse are just going to continue being self-deluded, self-obsessed egos with everyone tending to have their own agendas for seeking what they think will make them happy someday, rather than being already founded in one's inherent reality-based happiness. We see where our current "logic" has gotten us so far! The current approach to life, and especially the global religion of ego/consumerism is not working - but is causing massive problems throughout the world!

Yes, well, I tend to see this somewhat differently. I live in the South Asian country where I was born; the individualism of the West is not much respected or understood here. Most people still live—or try to live—lives that are culturally traditional, and the prevailing culture is collective, not individual. Religious and governmental authority is very intrusive. A dominant ethnic group imposes its culture on numerous minorities. Individual desires, rights and freedoms are not much respected.

I have two things to say about your remarks quoted above. First, that despite the cultural difference, individuals behave just as selfishly in my country as they do in the West—they simply offer different rationalisations for their behaviour. I have lived and travelled in many countries, and despite obvious cultural differences (including what some like to call 'national character') I have found human beings to be pretty much the same everywhere.

Second, I am here to tell you that living in a culture where group interest and unity is privileged over individual self-determination and individual rights can be, to a modern, educated person, a black nightmare. You are obliged to follow the herd whether you want to or not—in thought (at least in your expressed thoughts) as in word and in deed. Attitudes and beliefs are expected to be orthodox; mavericks are cold-shouldered or actively oppressed. Authority—particularly that of elders, parents, received wisdom, old myths and books, etc.—is to be accepted unquestioningly. True psychological insight is not possible because only acceptable feelings and motives can be expressed or discussed. Every mind is boxed in, everybody becomes a mental cripple.

Western civilisation, and the individualism that drives it, is the greatest cultural force for good that has ever existed in the world. Without it, humanity would still be living in the oppressive darkness of ignorance, superstition and primitivism. Be grateful for what you've got, and rejoice that you live in a culture that allows you the freedom to pursue your own ends, rather than living under the tyranny of the 'collective'.

Thank you for your very well-written post - it is very interesting to hear from someone living outside the west.

I am not trying to say that the individual freedom found in the West is wrong - if it were not for that, I may not have even been able to write these posts. I also think though that the West suffers from a deterioration of community spirit by placing too much emphasis on the family unit. But these cultural differences between the West and East are not really what I am speaking of when I talk about our fundamental unity.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I'm not sure what a 'non-separable indivisible field of relatedness' is. Certainly we are all members of the same species, and by and large we tend to interact with people from our own local and national cultures, so there is some common ground there too.

This is a spiritual matter that is beyond the individualism of the West or the collective forces of the East. Everyone's body-mind arises in a field of infinite unity. This can be felt as love, connection, non-separation, relatedness, etc.

Even if it is not felt it can at least be pointed out via perception. When we observe what is in our current view, it is one field, one vision. Yes, parts can be distinguished as this and that, but fundamentally everything is connected - everything and everyone exists in a condition of relatedness to one another.

Our body-minds are completely dependent on being related (or unified) with the environment within which it arises. Obviously, without air, we are dead in minutes. We are dependent on others for food, etc., etc. So at the level of the elements, it is obvious that our body-minds arise in a condition of relatedness or non-separation from the world.

Even in the realm of feeling, when embracing an intimate, are there actual boundaries in the heart-feeling between such lovers? When you look at someone, are you not already in relationship with them?

But these are just a few of the expressions of our essential unity or feeling of relatedness that is prior and senior to all the appearances. Again, it is a spiritual foundation or sense of being or consciousness that is universal and can be noticed in each and every moment.

If the majority, both East and West, would recognize our essential unity, it would be the right and true foundation upon which to go forward.

reply to post by bb23108

I see. You are speaking of something that transcends the physical. I'm afraid I do not believe in such things, though I don't really wish to debate the subject. I am far more interested in the political, social and psychological aspects of the thread topic.

reply to post by Astyanax

What I am speaking about does not simply transcend the physical - it includes the physical. The examples that I wrote about included noting that man is completely dependent on his environment for survival - not just that all of us are arising in a unified field of indivisible light/energy.

Through mutually acknowledging that we are all in the same boat together globally, we can more readily cooperate for the common good of all. An example of being in the same boat together is the extreme weather that impacts all of us. Such weather patterns clearly do not take into account national boundaries! So too our cooperation relative to doing something about this must be global.

Everything else follows this inherent recognition of our mutuality, unity, and global situation here, and will provide the human basis for true cooperation between the many different people, cultures, societies, nations, etc. it is very clear that the current mode of separative egoic existence is not working

reply to post by bb23108


I watched a programme on tv last night called Tomorrows World and it was showing how because of the internet normal people are coming together to find solutions to problems like the oil spills. One man saw the news and invented a new solution and put it on the web and got people to help him expand and improve his idea. It was not done by big companies for profit - it was solution based only. Another man saw people surrounded by water in flood conditions and was horrified to hear they had nothing to drink - fresh water was being flown in. He invented a filtration device - the life saver bottle - it has saved many life's.
There is even normal (not government/establishment) people flying robots to land on the moon now as well.