- “International organization” defined; authority of President,
“The President shall be authorized, in the light of the functions performed by any such international organization, by appropriate Executive order to withhold or withdraw from any such organization or its officers or employees any of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided for in this subchapter”
and this would include
Immunity from search and seizure of property and assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held
Archives are inviolable
So basically, we need a President who is willing to do this.
Thanks for posing these eminently logical listed factors and the question based on them. This is a good way of presenting these inherent paradoxes. Can’t even simplify answers to fit in a comment. Will try with a post.
How we think about the problem does affect how we move towards solving it. I don't know if folks here would be interested in this essay by former archdruid John Michael Greer: 'Getting Beyond the Narratives: An Open Letter to the Activist Community' https://www.ecosophia.net/getting-beyond-narratives/ which he wrote some time ago in response to an anthology of essays by activists.
This is great, thanks for the link. Because being able to distill logic from complexity requires us to be willing to put up with analyzing and comprehending complex concepts. The concepts well explored here are valuable keys. Even my Occam’s razor response won’t fit in a comment.
Capitalism, with its inherent drive to centralization, is doomed to fail without debt jubilees or wars. This is the lesson that international finance capitalists don't want you to learn. They are *fascists*, not *socialists*, but they don't care about the labels beyond their value in manipulating people. Their goal is centralization, in their hands of course. Depopulation is secondary but necessary to them because they need to eliminate idle workers who will become threats to them.
1.) Have I characterized the problem correctly? If not, how do you see it?
Well it does seem like a roller coaster, created in my opinion by an unbalanced relationship between order and liberty.
3.) How do we interrupt this cycle, step off the hamster wheel, and transcend the failed ideologies that led us into this valley of death?
By recognizing that the split model of reality where the spiritual and the material are declared to be fundamentally different serves the elite and not the common man. Replace this with the assumption that the spiritual and the material are the same thing and we will do much better, no utopia, still struggle, but a better chance at dignity.
3.) Are we staring at failed ideology (that can be fixed) or simply the human condition (always broken, always flawed, always lusting after things that make us miserable in the end)?
The human condition is to learn, usually the hard way, but we all have obligation to make things easier for others if we can. Ideology lets a person think they know something even though the ideology did the thinking for them. Perhaps what you call ideology, can also be called dominant narrative.
> Most of the carnage of the last few years is the direct result of Pharma seizing the state throughout the developed world and using it to increase their wealth and power.
I think you got it backwards. The state or actors above it, seized control of pharma. Look at Sasha Latypova's description of the relation between DoD and the companies involved in the production of the injections: "not arms length", DoD micromanaged them, basically controlled them. For both pharma and government it's all covid and shots now, something at or above the level of government has taken over.
Personal liberty and economic liberty are inseparable. You cannot truly have one without the other. They are both expressions of human action.
The path forward is interaction based completely on voluntary cooperation. The work to get there is done individually. We affect our community and ourselves by living with integrity, and connecting with and inspiring others to do the same. When we find ourselves looking to someone else to solve our issues with aggressive force, we have gone astray.
To be clear, holding our own boundaries is important. Holding and defending boundaries is not the same as use of aggressive force. Nothing sustainably good can come out of a strategy that ultimately demands the control of others.
So to move forward, we must let go of the idea that if people aren’t controlled in some way by some forceful entity, the society will devolve into fascism. Fascism cannot exist in a society that largely rejects the concept of seeking to control others.
Nov 1, 2022·edited Nov 1, 2022Liked by Toby Rogers
The thing is, people don't recognize what they don't have a name for. For example, when my girl friend and I go for a walk, I might see "a bird" now and again which holds little interest for me, while she sees many more and of many species, and often knows the sex of the bird which she shares.
On the other hand, she wears a mask in stores and gets her boosters, while refusing to have any conversation about it with me. She also is derisively dismissive of my reluctance to be around her in the month or so after she gets her shot.
She doesn't get the irony about her behavior or note the disconnect between our mindsets.
- I say, "Sure, tell me about your birding expedition. I may not be interested in birds, but I'm interested in you."
- She says, "I don't want to hear anything about vaccines from you, and won't read anything you recommend on the topic. I trust the CDC and the News."
My mistake: I made reference to Shayne Wissler's conception of anarchism before realizing he has written a deeply nuanced essay on the topic: https://reasonandliberty.com/essays/against_anarchism While I may not agree with his conclusions, it's worth consideration.
As I wrote in my book Words from the Dead, Karl Popper grappled mightily with this set of questions as he watched the Nazis annex his beloved homeland Austria in 1938. The result was his magisterial two-volume book released at the end of WWII, The Open Society and its Enemies, which provides some useful guiding principles. For instance, "...the old question, 'Who shall be the rulers?' must be superseded by the more real one, 'How can we tame them?'" which goes to Shayne Wissler's erudite consideration of the problem. As Popper puts it so succinctly, "a tyrannical government outlaws itself," and should be treated as such—an outlaw deserving of no consideration as a legitimate power either by domestic or foreign citizens. Further, writes Popper, "Economic power must not be permitted to dominate political power; if necessary it must be fought and brought under control by political power." I part ways with Wissler on the question of anarchy as "chaos," a common misconception of the political philosophy known as anarchism. Although there are many permutations of anarchism—as of any political philosophy—in essence, it is the rejection of any form of centralized government in favour of localized systems of self-governance that may be cooperative but not conglomerated.
Since you ask, Toby, I don't think you have characterized the problem entirely correctly. If you delve deeply into the history and relationship of two elements you identify, 'political liberalism' and monopoly capitalism, you can see that you have the historical sequence reversed.
The fact is, monopoly capitalism existed before what you describe as political liberalism gradually came into existed. If you consider the evidence that monopoly capitalism has its origins in, and is an inevitable outgrowth of a private monopoly on the creation of capital itself, well, you can see that record going back a thousand years or more, long before the advent of 'political liberalism' (or, as you define it free speech, democratic elections, let people make their own decisions) which is and has always been an illusory facade disguising the power structure created by monopoly capitalists.
People are sick. Sick people make sick societies and organizations. Sick societies and organizations raise sick children. We must recognize the nature of our sickness if we ever hope to cure it, and distinguish between the core, healthy person and the disease.
It's off topic, I know, and I apologize. I think this is an important viewpoint that needs to be heard, from a Welsh pharmaceutical supply chain, logistics and manufacturing consultant. 21 minutes. https://rumble.com/v1qe9nk-freeman-interviews-hedley.html
In
Laundering With Immunity: The Control Framework
https://www.coreysdigs.com/u-s/laundering-with-immunity-the-control-framework-part-1/
Cory Lynn explains the control framework whereby the Bank of International Settlements enjoys sovereign immunity.
But according to 22 U.S. Code § 288
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/288
- “International organization” defined; authority of President,
“The President shall be authorized, in the light of the functions performed by any such international organization, by appropriate Executive order to withhold or withdraw from any such organization or its officers or employees any of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided for in this subchapter”
and this would include
Immunity from search and seizure of property and assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held
Archives are inviolable
So basically, we need a President who is willing to do this.
This question should be put to RFK, jr.
Is he willing to Raid the Laundromat?
Thanks for posing these eminently logical listed factors and the question based on them. This is a good way of presenting these inherent paradoxes. Can’t even simplify answers to fit in a comment. Will try with a post.
How we think about the problem does affect how we move towards solving it. I don't know if folks here would be interested in this essay by former archdruid John Michael Greer: 'Getting Beyond the Narratives: An Open Letter to the Activist Community' https://www.ecosophia.net/getting-beyond-narratives/ which he wrote some time ago in response to an anthology of essays by activists.
This is great, thanks for the link. Because being able to distill logic from complexity requires us to be willing to put up with analyzing and comprehending complex concepts. The concepts well explored here are valuable keys. Even my Occam’s razor response won’t fit in a comment.
The Era of All-Powerful Central Banks Is Over
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/11/charles-hugh-smith/the-era-of-all-powerful-central-banks-is-over/
Capitalism, with its inherent drive to centralization, is doomed to fail without debt jubilees or wars. This is the lesson that international finance capitalists don't want you to learn. They are *fascists*, not *socialists*, but they don't care about the labels beyond their value in manipulating people. Their goal is centralization, in their hands of course. Depopulation is secondary but necessary to them because they need to eliminate idle workers who will become threats to them.
They will lose. Their time is over.
Klaus Schwab’s right-hand man calls for “mass extinction event” to usher in Great Reset
https://www.newstarget.com/2022-10-31-klaus-schwab-mass-extinction-event-great-reset.html
Did Emily Oster remember to ask forgiveness for Yuval Harari?
Methodically murder 99.98 % of earthlings and just start over!
Questions for you:
1.) Have I characterized the problem correctly? If not, how do you see it?
Well it does seem like a roller coaster, created in my opinion by an unbalanced relationship between order and liberty.
3.) How do we interrupt this cycle, step off the hamster wheel, and transcend the failed ideologies that led us into this valley of death?
By recognizing that the split model of reality where the spiritual and the material are declared to be fundamentally different serves the elite and not the common man. Replace this with the assumption that the spiritual and the material are the same thing and we will do much better, no utopia, still struggle, but a better chance at dignity.
3.) Are we staring at failed ideology (that can be fixed) or simply the human condition (always broken, always flawed, always lusting after things that make us miserable in the end)?
The human condition is to learn, usually the hard way, but we all have obligation to make things easier for others if we can. Ideology lets a person think they know something even though the ideology did the thinking for them. Perhaps what you call ideology, can also be called dominant narrative.
> Most of the carnage of the last few years is the direct result of Pharma seizing the state throughout the developed world and using it to increase their wealth and power.
I think you got it backwards. The state or actors above it, seized control of pharma. Look at Sasha Latypova's description of the relation between DoD and the companies involved in the production of the injections: "not arms length", DoD micromanaged them, basically controlled them. For both pharma and government it's all covid and shots now, something at or above the level of government has taken over.
Personal liberty and economic liberty are inseparable. You cannot truly have one without the other. They are both expressions of human action.
The path forward is interaction based completely on voluntary cooperation. The work to get there is done individually. We affect our community and ourselves by living with integrity, and connecting with and inspiring others to do the same. When we find ourselves looking to someone else to solve our issues with aggressive force, we have gone astray.
To be clear, holding our own boundaries is important. Holding and defending boundaries is not the same as use of aggressive force. Nothing sustainably good can come out of a strategy that ultimately demands the control of others.
So to move forward, we must let go of the idea that if people aren’t controlled in some way by some forceful entity, the society will devolve into fascism. Fascism cannot exist in a society that largely rejects the concept of seeking to control others.
IMHO: We need to understand:
1) Narcissism which is foundational to the malevolent personalities in the Dark Triad
2) Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD), which is what happens to victims of narcissism.
I suggest that the appendix and second part of "Dance with the Devil: Love in the Age of Covid" can help. See my substack for more.
The thing is, people don't recognize what they don't have a name for. For example, when my girl friend and I go for a walk, I might see "a bird" now and again which holds little interest for me, while she sees many more and of many species, and often knows the sex of the bird which she shares.
On the other hand, she wears a mask in stores and gets her boosters, while refusing to have any conversation about it with me. She also is derisively dismissive of my reluctance to be around her in the month or so after she gets her shot.
She doesn't get the irony about her behavior or note the disconnect between our mindsets.
- I say, "Sure, tell me about your birding expedition. I may not be interested in birds, but I'm interested in you."
- She says, "I don't want to hear anything about vaccines from you, and won't read anything you recommend on the topic. I trust the CDC and the News."
My mistake: I made reference to Shayne Wissler's conception of anarchism before realizing he has written a deeply nuanced essay on the topic: https://reasonandliberty.com/essays/against_anarchism While I may not agree with his conclusions, it's worth consideration.
As I wrote in my book Words from the Dead, Karl Popper grappled mightily with this set of questions as he watched the Nazis annex his beloved homeland Austria in 1938. The result was his magisterial two-volume book released at the end of WWII, The Open Society and its Enemies, which provides some useful guiding principles. For instance, "...the old question, 'Who shall be the rulers?' must be superseded by the more real one, 'How can we tame them?'" which goes to Shayne Wissler's erudite consideration of the problem. As Popper puts it so succinctly, "a tyrannical government outlaws itself," and should be treated as such—an outlaw deserving of no consideration as a legitimate power either by domestic or foreign citizens. Further, writes Popper, "Economic power must not be permitted to dominate political power; if necessary it must be fought and brought under control by political power." I part ways with Wissler on the question of anarchy as "chaos," a common misconception of the political philosophy known as anarchism. Although there are many permutations of anarchism—as of any political philosophy—in essence, it is the rejection of any form of centralized government in favour of localized systems of self-governance that may be cooperative but not conglomerated.
I should have specified...I was referring to the first Popper quote....."'How can we tame them?'"
That Popper quote is really good. Thanks for posting that, I appreciate it.
(1) No it is not correct. See my book: https://reasonandliberty.com/rl
(2) See the last chapter of my book.
(3) See these articles:
https://reasonandliberty.com/articles/answering_fermi
https://reasonandliberty.com/articles/the_fourth_plane
Since you ask, Toby, I don't think you have characterized the problem entirely correctly. If you delve deeply into the history and relationship of two elements you identify, 'political liberalism' and monopoly capitalism, you can see that you have the historical sequence reversed.
The fact is, monopoly capitalism existed before what you describe as political liberalism gradually came into existed. If you consider the evidence that monopoly capitalism has its origins in, and is an inevitable outgrowth of a private monopoly on the creation of capital itself, well, you can see that record going back a thousand years or more, long before the advent of 'political liberalism' (or, as you define it free speech, democratic elections, let people make their own decisions) which is and has always been an illusory facade disguising the power structure created by monopoly capitalists.
Fascinating take.
People are sick. Sick people make sick societies and organizations. Sick societies and organizations raise sick children. We must recognize the nature of our sickness if we ever hope to cure it, and distinguish between the core, healthy person and the disease.
It's off topic, I know, and I apologize. I think this is an important viewpoint that needs to be heard, from a Welsh pharmaceutical supply chain, logistics and manufacturing consultant. 21 minutes. https://rumble.com/v1qe9nk-freeman-interviews-hedley.html