However, the main "problem" with this approach is that it focuses too much on "bad actors" and by doing this you divert attention and potentially exculpate "THE SYSTEM" (namely, FEUDAL HIERARCHY).
I think it does both actually. By focusing on the bad actors (so they can reap their due karma) it also CAN expose the exact reasons they were able to function as they did. I believe strongly examples of this are the way they (government) hides the how under the banner of national security. That shtick is so overused now it is a good area to begin focusing on, demanding answers on why its in national security to protect the criminals.
It's obvious that many of these crimes taking place (such as Epstein/Maxwell) are done with government aid and cover. The more we expose the players, it sheds light on exactly how the system failed the people in favor of a select elite who have grown so arrogant in their operations they are sloppy now, feeling untouchable.
I'm still not sure what, if any, system can be implemented that will work for long. There will always be folks who want more and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it, no matter the expense to others. Coupled with how many prefer others to take responsibility it seems unavoidable that at some point, regardless of the system, we will work our way back to corruption in power, protecting their own as they offer the masses carrots to tolerate just a bit more.
Still working my way through the Golden Web part 2 (got through 2 hours of it last night) and among many thoughts it raises, is how can be people be led to whats best if they aren't willing to examine their own ignorance and take responsibility to change it (if its even possible)? It does seem to be an endless cycle from one side to the other (positive/negative).
I think the question in regards to your position on Holacracy for the masses is this. Would the masses accept such a system?
I think there has to be a change of culture for there to be a political change. It's not that culture necessarily needs to change before politics but things need to change together. If you liberate people too quickly, they suffer from a growth panic and run back to the oppressor.
What if most oppose being liberated?
They do.
That's why we must adopt some of the tactics of CON-ARTISTS in order to "convince" people they need to adopt RCV and HOLACRACY.
That's why we must adopt some of the tactics of CON-ARTISTS in order to "convince" people they need to adopt RCV and HOLACRACY.
After watching that series of videos you asked about, the first question that comes to mind is how would one do that while maintaining a neutral position?
By communicating verifiable facts based on identifiable AXIOMS.
If you package them in a few logical fallacies (con-artist tactics) here and there, then you're prepared to pounce on anyone intelligent enough to critique.
I HATE the "noble lie".
I can see a case for the "noble fallacy" (good information communicated poorly).
But only as a bridge to communicating verifiable facts based on explicit AXIOMS.
For example, if the majority of people respond to "light blue (cyan)", then use that to your advantage.
You don't have to change your message in the slightest. Just change what color you use to get people's attention.
The best CON-ARTISTS don't even use lies at all.
They just sample bias their "truth" and use psychological tactics (colors, architecture, NLP, familial instinct) to trick people (initiates) into believing they're "thinking up their own ideas" (inception).
I try to steer clear of the most obvious tricks because I'm trying to find people who are repulsed by them (like myself).
Not always a 'Con'. I throw out fallacies intentionally sometimes, when speaking with someone I do not know anything about, to 'gauge' their perception/capacity/vigilance/etc. Basically, just to see if they even recognize my crime. If they do, it tells me that I am dealing with someone who can take a whole other level of communication. If they do not, then I know I will need to 'tone it down' with this one.
Well stated.
That's why we need to start with baby-steps.
RCV FTW!
I certainly hope so.
Yes.
Do you want real human rights that you can't be tricked into signing away to CON-ARTIST MOBSTERS?
Do you want 100% control over what goes into and what comes out of your OWN BODY?
Do you want a system of "government" that's NOT identical to a high-school POPULARITY CONTEST?
DO YOU WANT A LEGAL SYSTEM THAT TREATS EVERYONE THE SAME WHILE PROTECTING THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS HUMAN BEINGS?
Well kiddos, there's a new word you need to learn, and it's HOLACRACY (and it's modeled after how your brain works).