RE: Physics Vs. Politics
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Humanity will always be in this power struggle against the overlords unless humanity can shift perception to not think in terms of gain over ones neighbor.
I see it as a pyramidal power structure, which only a small percent can inhabit the top tier, and the rest are doomed to squabble and fight with one another, trying to climb to a higher rung, never able to see the proverbial strings that their masters pull.
It's difficult to operate outside of this system while living directly in it. Everything is corporation now, family owned businesses are becoming less and less, all by design, and the system is now the Orwellian nightmare that we hoped it wouldn't become.
I think from a physics point of view, you make some really great points. The flow of information is increasing with the internet, and they are scrambling to keep the masses under their tightly knit platforms, as people are getting sick as fuck and dying from the jab and witnessing their neighbors get sick. At a certain point, a mass awakening will occur, and these bastards are most certainly afraid of the implications of this awakening.
I hope for a better future for mankind.
Thank you for raising awareness.
This seems to neglect the underlying premise of my post, which is that parasitization and power are dependent on centralization. Perhaps I was unclear as to that in my attempt to attain to brevity, the heart and soul of good writing, but the enemy of exposition.
Insofar as independent production of goods and services are undertaken by individuals, the power of overlords is deprecated. As the affects of independent means concatenate and multiply the impact of each the other, the power of producers is exponentially increased by each means adopted, and by each adopter in a community.
This suggests to me that humanity is so deeply evolved to egalitarian societies that centralization and subjection to overlords is terribly fragile, and only attained with difficulty. Bloody history and the present desperation, practically innumerable expenditures, and fierce adherence to their common narrative strongly supports this hypothesis, in addition to the fact that humanity has apparently spent 99.999% of it's evolution in egalitarian societies, and only potentially impacted by centralization for a few centuries.
The fact that psychopathy enables overlords to parasitize centralization, and that this is terrible for the reproductive success of the subjugated reveals that physics abhors centralization almost as much as it does a vacuum. While I am incompetent and unwilling to exhaustively detail how and when we can and will decentralize nominally, I remain confident we will, because of the immensity of the advantage decentralization inherently grants over centralization.
The nature of power and psychopathy does not, however, suggest this will be bloodless or easily done. It only asserts that it will almost certainly be done, and that psychopathy will become seen as a congenital disease, because it is, and that hopefully their deranging influence on our comity and happiness will soon be mitigated.
Them in denial of their derangement the more desperately deny they can be regulated, but perhaps that is the best means at our disposal today to mitigate the ongoing harm. But, I've said too much. Their own most dire weapons against all that is good and decent are revealed to be the very solution to the problem they pose to good people that seek to endow their posterity with a legacy of prosperity and liberty.
I am glad better men than I are on it.
The underlying premise was not misunderstood.
It is simply a counterargument I would propose, that the parasitization is so deeply embedded into society, that there is a willful resistance of acknowledgement or perhaps ability to even see the dependence which we are currently under, with the mass perception being affected so greatly with this parasitic dependence.
If we are to deconstruct centralization and build anew, how many will dispel the box they have subjugated themselves to, wittingly or unwittingly so?
If the masses cannot see the shackles that bind them, I propose that there will be a natural push for centralized power and control which will manifest from within society, and the process will begin again.
It is only my opinion to suggest that profit models of all kinds need to be disintegrated from human thought process. That we must think in terms of helping one another and not hoarding resources, but sharing resources with one another and working towards a common goal, as a unit. No one to be "in charge", no one to have more than their neighbor. This could be contested in many ways I'm sure.
One might say you have more than me if you have more carpentry tools, but perhaps you have more carpentry tools because you are a better carpenter, and perhaps I have more fishing poles because I am a better fisherman, and we are both providing our skillset and intent to serve the greater good, and not thinking in terms of just personal gain with our tools.
If a fisherman who is my neighbor decides he likes my poles better, and that he must steal mine or have more poles than me, this is the parasite, who is thinking about personal gain, and this lays a foundation for a pyramidal power structure to begin taking shape. A competition based society, where psychopathy thrives and the kind go without.
It is where we currently are now, and so my proposal to this vision is probably far fetched in this current perception of competition based society.
Even the decentralized blockchain model is currently highly competitive with how many see it, and is even programmed to operate in such a manner, at least this is how it seems to me, but perhaps I am wrong and not claiming to know for certain. One thing I can say is certain, is the human perception which drives the blockchain as a whole operates within these perceptual confines.
So I still remain grounded in this assertion, but I very much value your view on this as well.
Thank you for your insightful thoughts on this topic.
I can see your point, and I actually agree with it. Today people, for the most part, have not realized the world has transformed in very fundamental ways. People mostly seem to think that significant change hasn't happened yet, and to expect nothing to happen, like always, because business will be handled by business handlers, as they always are. They're also partly right, because it will continue to change, and the point at which they realize they shouldn't have left their fate up to their handlers will be when they're long past the point of no return. They will have been wrong about nothing significant happening.
All people will, willingly or unwillingly. Farmers have no seed, nor feed for their animals. As shelves bare across the West, their exigency will dawn on folks, and they will raise a great clamor for someone to solve the problem. Their real problem will be that it's not a problem at all, but the solution to the problem they are. Before they starve, flee, or resign themselves to the camps, they will consider undertaking handling their own business. Most will dismiss this thought as inconvenient, and the normalcy bias will claim another victim. It will claim lots of victims.
They do not believe in conspiracies. They don't believe in the Georgia Guidestones, UN Agenda 2030, or in the raving ranters that have been warning them for years. I reckon them as will take action already are, and them as won't, well, they won't matter. They won't be part of the problem for long.
They'll have been handled. The rest of us will be dodging drones, and dying. But we'll be providing our own goods and services then, because they won't be coming from China, or on trucks, or by rail, except for those that accept the jabs and the bugpods they come with. But they will be GMOs, wholly owned by their masters, and won't be people anymore, by law. They'll be property. Maybe Klaus Schwab will have been right about them, and they'll be fine with it.
We'll see.
I'm sure there have always been thieves, thugs, and petty overlords. But without agriculture there was no excess wealth to feed armies with, and when drones are 'capturing carbon' we won't be gardening. Folks will need to defend one another from the drones, and will happily ensure the folks that have their back can keep on having their back, and in time standard procedures for preventing thieves, thugs, and petty overlords will develop. It's pretty simple, really. Thieves and thugs have no appetites for fair fights.
I'd sure rather be wrong. I hope, a lot, that I am.
Thanks!