Pro-God, Pro-Human Life, anti-New World Order, Anti-Nefarious Secret Societies, Pro-Civil Liberties, anti-Torture, anti-National ID Card, Pro-Family, Anti-Neo Conservativism, Pro-Net Neutrality, Pro-Home Schooling, Anti-Voting Fraud, Pro-Good Israelis & Pro-Good Palestinians, Anti-Human Trafficking, Pro-Health Freedom, Anti-Codex Alimentarius, Pro-Action, Anti-Bigotry, Pro-9/11 Justice, Anti-Genocide, and Pro-Gun Control. My name is Timothy and I'm from the state of Virginia.
I don't think black, white, pink, green, christian, muslim, etc voluntary unity is ever possible; under a flat earth anthropocentric system of jurisprudence.
Most 'followers' (and perhaps some leaders), from all races, believe that their racial, cultural, ideological or religious disunity is a result of some racial, cultural, etc inferiority or other reason; when in fact all racial, cultural, religious etc disunity is a result of resource wars; and various leaders using divide and conquer breeding war and consumption war tactics, for access to cannon fodder, or to capital/production/technological capacity to access a greater piece of the resource pie.
If you live in a finite world, which we do; and you want voluntary racial, cultural, religious or other form of unity; then you must implement a system of jurisprudence which requires all citizens to procreate and consume below their region or nation's carrying capacity limits.
If you got a prison cell with two prisoners and a 20 beds and 20 toilet rolls; they gonna have resource unity. They don't care if they one is muslim and other christian, one is black and the other white. They are united to the extent that there are more than enough resources for both.
Add 20 or 30 more prisoners, from different cultures, races or ideologies, and now there are less resources than prisoners. Now if none of the prisoners know each other personally or in any other way; they will separate into firstly racial groups (skin colour is easy to identify); religious and/or cultural groups (particularly where any religion or culture wears easy identifiable clothing to easily and quickly identify the other as 'us' or 'them'); and so on. The leaders of each racial, cultural group, will manipulate their followers emotions, by using past racial, cultural, or religious hostility or insults, to coercively unify the group; to then fight the other groups for the greatest amount of access to bed and toilet paper resources they can accomplish.
Most humans (men and women) from most cultures, religions, ideologies, do not want to take personal responsibility for engaging in a conversation about breeding and consuming below carrying capacity resource limits.
Their addiction of blaming 'white vs black', 'jew vs aryan/muslim', 'capitalist vs peasant' and so on has gone on so long and is almost seared into their psychic consciousness; their racial, cultural or other identity, in the same way that cattle are seared and marked with branding irons; they do not want to confront the root causes of their addiction.
They are like an alcoholic who blames his alcoholism on the fact that he lives next to a liquor store; instead of admitting -- like that journalist in 'The Bridge' series -- admits that he is a drug addict, because he hates himself, it makes him feel better about himself, it helps him to avoid confronting how meaningless his materialistic life is, how his friends are all fake, how he is fake, and so on. His drug addiction makes him numb to the pain of his life, which he is too afraid to confront, too afraid to feel, too afraid to release.
For a more academic discussion on why jurisprudence must include a limit, requiring citizens to procreate and consume below carrying capacity limits; to avoid resource war conflicts which in multicultural/religious/racial societies manifest as racial, religious or cultural conflicts; see Garrett Hardin.
In Stalking the Wild Taboo, by Garrett Hardin: Part 4: Competition: (20) Competition, a Tabooed Idea in Sociology; (21) The Cybernetics of Competition; (22) Population, Biology and the Law; (23) Population Skeletons in the Environmental Closet; (24) The Survival of Nations and Civilisations, he deals with the concept of Competition, a process that is inescapable in societies living in a finite resource world. He proves that the end result of perfect laissez-faire, competition reduces all competitors until there is only one left. The monopolist will try to manipulate the machinery of society in such a way as to extend his powers everywhere, without limit. The same applies to labour monopolies. Under these conditions it is important to seek the boundary conditions within which the rule of laissez-faire can produce stability. An Act that may be harmless when the system is healthy and strong may be quite destructive when the system is stressed near its limits. To promote the goal of stability, a law must take cognizance not only of the act but also of the state of the system at the time the act is performed.
I don't think black, white, pink, green, christian, muslim, etc voluntary unity is ever possible; under a flat earth anthropocentric system of jurisprudence.
ReplyDeleteMost 'followers' (and perhaps some leaders), from all races, believe that their racial, cultural, ideological or religious disunity is a result of some racial, cultural, etc inferiority or other reason; when in fact all racial, cultural, religious etc disunity is a result of resource wars; and various leaders using divide and conquer breeding war and consumption war tactics, for access to cannon fodder, or to capital/production/technological capacity to access a greater piece of the resource pie.
If you live in a finite world, which we do; and you want voluntary racial, cultural, religious or other form of unity; then you must implement a system of jurisprudence which requires all citizens to procreate and consume below their region or nation's carrying capacity limits.
If you got a prison cell with two prisoners and a 20 beds and 20 toilet rolls; they gonna have resource unity. They don't care if they one is muslim and other christian, one is black and the other white. They are united to the extent that there are more than enough resources for both.
Add 20 or 30 more prisoners, from different cultures, races or ideologies, and now there are less resources than prisoners. Now if none of the prisoners know each other personally or in any other way; they will separate into firstly racial groups (skin colour is easy to identify); religious and/or cultural groups (particularly where any religion or culture wears easy identifiable clothing to easily and quickly identify the other as 'us' or 'them'); and so on. The leaders of each racial, cultural group, will manipulate their followers emotions, by using past racial, cultural, or religious hostility or insults, to coercively unify the group; to then fight the other groups for the greatest amount of access to bed and toilet paper resources they can accomplish.
Most humans (men and women) from most cultures, religions, ideologies, do not want to take personal responsibility for engaging in a conversation about breeding and consuming below carrying capacity resource limits.
Their addiction of blaming 'white vs black', 'jew vs aryan/muslim', 'capitalist vs peasant' and so on has gone on so long and is almost seared into their psychic consciousness; their racial, cultural or other identity, in the same way that cattle are seared and marked with branding irons; they do not want to confront the root causes of their addiction.
They are like an alcoholic who blames his alcoholism on the fact that he lives next to a liquor store; instead of admitting -- like that journalist in 'The Bridge' series -- admits that he is a drug addict, because he hates himself, it makes him feel better about himself, it helps him to avoid confronting how meaningless his materialistic life is, how his friends are all fake, how he is fake, and so on. His drug addiction makes him numb to the pain of his life, which he is too afraid to confront, too afraid to feel, too afraid to release.
For a more academic discussion on why jurisprudence must include a limit, requiring citizens to procreate and consume below carrying capacity limits; to avoid resource war conflicts which in multicultural/religious/racial societies manifest as racial, religious or cultural conflicts; see Garrett Hardin.
In Stalking the Wild Taboo, by Garrett Hardin: Part 4: Competition: (20) Competition, a Tabooed Idea in Sociology; (21) The Cybernetics of Competition; (22) Population, Biology and the Law; (23) Population Skeletons in the Environmental Closet; (24) The Survival of Nations and Civilisations, he deals with the concept of Competition, a process that is inescapable in societies living in a finite resource world. He proves that the end result of perfect laissez-faire, competition reduces all competitors until there is only one left. The monopolist will try to manipulate the machinery of society in such a way as to extend his powers everywhere, without limit. The same applies to labour monopolies. Under these conditions it is important to seek the boundary conditions within which the rule of laissez-faire can produce stability. An Act that may be harmless when the system is healthy and strong may be quite destructive when the system is stressed near its limits. To promote the goal of stability, a law must take cognizance not only of the act but also of the state of the system at the time the act is performed.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you 100 percent. There is nothing wrong with Black Unity at all.
ReplyDelete