Irishone21
Well-Known Member
Although I advocate Revolution, doesn't it seem as if rebellion is the only way to trigger this? Civilians in America are not disposed to violence, so the best way to rebel would be to do nothing. To stay home, think, and write about what you want changed. Unity would help, but is this really possible? Haven’t they deterred all leadership with their technological capabilities? Filtered emails, restricted Internet access, tapped phones, to name a few.
The government basically tries, whether unconsciously or not, to turn individuals against themselves and each other, causing them to compete or in some cases abdicate to a supposed illness, where in which he/she would be compelled to go to meetings with other passive men in disgruntled submission to the government, not the drugs or alcohol, the escapes from the society the government has created. Maybe an indolent rebellion may be a means to achieving further unity, for after the government realizes that acting as ruler entices rebellion as oppose to enforces subjugation or conformity, they will start to change, for otherwise, they will reap no benefits. The government satisfies with conformity, because people love equality. The government doesn't realize, or neglect the fact that conformity is not brotherhood, and it is the equality in which humanity should fear, not tolerate. It is almost impossible to unite, for the people are blind, exhausted, content, or apathetic. The time it takes to convince one person is too long in itself, and considering technology, although it is the last hope to democracy, enervates democracy, and causes isolative lifestyles, or a nation full of hermits, with similar beliefs, yet divisive all the same, attempting to unite a nation is as foolish as moving to Iraq, in preppy clothing without weaponry, seeking understanding of the people, in an attempt to reconcile hatreds. Yeah, both admirable, but is this not the actions of a martyr?
Now, instead of realizing the status of our country is the result of a deceptive, obscure government and contemplating and pursuing means to change it, we accept it, believing it is an unchangeable fact of life, as if human nature is implacable and leadership is a meaningless effort that yields temporary results. Should we really abdicate to this theory? Are we all dogs obedient to our masters? I don't think we should hate the government, but we should prove to them that their tactics are not effective, and refuse to be compliant until changes are made. We all know the changes our country needs. Even our government knows of solution, but government officials are so rational, so caught up in the game of politics, that each person who works for the government becomes excessively irrational, as if the word of man, and the consequence of all historical events, were absolute causal events that depend on nothing but the actions, and not the time.
It is not difficult to understand the common good. Complex issues require votes, but in regards to merging dichotomies, cooperating, and standing against war, all of this is mandatory. Even in the face of adversity we should be able to stand against war and hatred, and instead of instigating a war, or advancing impudently into a catastrophic hegemonic downfall called imperial oversight, we should try to understand why we have enemies. We must be empathetic and understand the intentions of the opposition. We may condemn the action, but we must not condemn the person, or the cause. Instead of destroy; teach, love, amend and repair. The majority calls me irrational and naive just as the majority calls Muslims animals and terrorist. My question is, are they just expressing their hatred for us, or are they only revealing their dissatisfaction with themselves? One usually insults someone when he or she recognizes a flaw in him or her in which he or she once had, and most likely despised. When this person observes this action, or when he or she is confronted by this action, the action sparks anger and triggers displacement, which results in a mirror image clouded with contemptuous observations of one another. I'm a victim of the cognitive distortion myself, but I'm honest about it. Some may say our government is the best in the spotlight, but I speak for the both of us, when I say our government is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
American is not a superpower; she is a nation full of prisoners. Our economic status, military power, technology, history, and institutions do not leave us on top, and claiming the do, would reassure us of our ignorance. Our money makes us susceptible to corruption and indolence. On the brighter side, the paradox of plenty may also imply an altruistic heart, for those with too much are inundated, and only relieved by giving. Wise altruism anticipates, prepares, and causes reciprocation, not ungratefulness, or loss of respect. With that in mind, what I suggest is not necessarily altruism; it is the neutrality between egotism and altruism, which is precisely the key to cooperation and leadership.
We need to make drastic changes in our mentalities and policies, and procedures to bring about change within nations, in order to solve problems. Lawmakers feel compelled to continue to make laws, but they shun their responsibility of limiting or eradicating laws. The legislative branch must at least have the intentions of limiting or eliminating law that has passed into legislation. The legislative branch needs to communicate more with the people. They need to do this passionately, and emotionally. They must provide more incentives. Such as, if these crimes decrease, the law will become more lenient. Basically, the legislative branch must give the people a chance to earn the trust they deserve. The government does not deserve our trust, nor do we deserve theirs, that is why this must be an effort of both sides. The president needs to put his ego aside, and emulate his people, by adapting the best understanding of morality once it arises. He basically needs to work with everyone, as the face of democracy. He must represent the people and as Plato would call it, “the good” not himself. What is divinely correct is preeminent to what is politically correct. The only time the president is obliged to implement his personal power is when the people fail to understand morality. Only when the president discovers and understands what is best for society, is he/she allowed to pursue his/her personal interest. If the president demands something that coincides with the Will of God, we must abide and respect his/he decision even if we feel it may entail precarious risks. Forcing a nation to invade another country is a decision the congress must approve of, and hopefully, the congress is one with the people, which would make this a democratic practice, not that of an oligarchy. If the people demand military withdrawal, or reformation, they must be granted their wish.
Separation of church and state keeps government out of religion and religion out of government, but not spirituality and identity out of politics. If politics and God are completely separate, conflict, devolution and/or dissolution will become inevitable. If this is the case, politics will become an empty and corrupt practice, while God will be misconstrued, ignored and fantasized or idolized, rather than revered and worshiped. For the courageous that held onto his/her enlightenment, he/ she will be incessantly mocked, disparaged, and judged by the majority, which usually, will isolate or expatriate him/her from society. These unfortunate circumstances will increase the pressure for the faithful, and overwhelm the stress he or she must bear to maintain his/her faith and responsibility. What I am describing is the prelude to dark ages. The people must be awakened!
The government must seek to unite people, not divide them. The government must seek to help society, not hurt society. The government must seek to amend rivalries, not fuel them.
One may research biblical philosophy and say vengeance is not condemned. I agree with this. But I also must make it understood that in no way, shape, or form is vengeance condoned. Revenge is a privilege, like free will, which has costs. Justice by man is achieved not by condemnation, or violence, or judgment but by righteousness and clemency. We can say something is wrong, but not someone is wrong. Justice is an act of God, which is far more powerful and lasting than any vengeance man can inflict.
An exile without prejudice is a hero destined for leadership. This is the return of The Prince; Machiavellian is the past; the future we can only hope to understand. I speak to the government and the people. I will not beg for acceptance, only welcome adherence.
Sincerely,
Zachary Scott McBride
The government basically tries, whether unconsciously or not, to turn individuals against themselves and each other, causing them to compete or in some cases abdicate to a supposed illness, where in which he/she would be compelled to go to meetings with other passive men in disgruntled submission to the government, not the drugs or alcohol, the escapes from the society the government has created. Maybe an indolent rebellion may be a means to achieving further unity, for after the government realizes that acting as ruler entices rebellion as oppose to enforces subjugation or conformity, they will start to change, for otherwise, they will reap no benefits. The government satisfies with conformity, because people love equality. The government doesn't realize, or neglect the fact that conformity is not brotherhood, and it is the equality in which humanity should fear, not tolerate. It is almost impossible to unite, for the people are blind, exhausted, content, or apathetic. The time it takes to convince one person is too long in itself, and considering technology, although it is the last hope to democracy, enervates democracy, and causes isolative lifestyles, or a nation full of hermits, with similar beliefs, yet divisive all the same, attempting to unite a nation is as foolish as moving to Iraq, in preppy clothing without weaponry, seeking understanding of the people, in an attempt to reconcile hatreds. Yeah, both admirable, but is this not the actions of a martyr?
Now, instead of realizing the status of our country is the result of a deceptive, obscure government and contemplating and pursuing means to change it, we accept it, believing it is an unchangeable fact of life, as if human nature is implacable and leadership is a meaningless effort that yields temporary results. Should we really abdicate to this theory? Are we all dogs obedient to our masters? I don't think we should hate the government, but we should prove to them that their tactics are not effective, and refuse to be compliant until changes are made. We all know the changes our country needs. Even our government knows of solution, but government officials are so rational, so caught up in the game of politics, that each person who works for the government becomes excessively irrational, as if the word of man, and the consequence of all historical events, were absolute causal events that depend on nothing but the actions, and not the time.
It is not difficult to understand the common good. Complex issues require votes, but in regards to merging dichotomies, cooperating, and standing against war, all of this is mandatory. Even in the face of adversity we should be able to stand against war and hatred, and instead of instigating a war, or advancing impudently into a catastrophic hegemonic downfall called imperial oversight, we should try to understand why we have enemies. We must be empathetic and understand the intentions of the opposition. We may condemn the action, but we must not condemn the person, or the cause. Instead of destroy; teach, love, amend and repair. The majority calls me irrational and naive just as the majority calls Muslims animals and terrorist. My question is, are they just expressing their hatred for us, or are they only revealing their dissatisfaction with themselves? One usually insults someone when he or she recognizes a flaw in him or her in which he or she once had, and most likely despised. When this person observes this action, or when he or she is confronted by this action, the action sparks anger and triggers displacement, which results in a mirror image clouded with contemptuous observations of one another. I'm a victim of the cognitive distortion myself, but I'm honest about it. Some may say our government is the best in the spotlight, but I speak for the both of us, when I say our government is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
American is not a superpower; she is a nation full of prisoners. Our economic status, military power, technology, history, and institutions do not leave us on top, and claiming the do, would reassure us of our ignorance. Our money makes us susceptible to corruption and indolence. On the brighter side, the paradox of plenty may also imply an altruistic heart, for those with too much are inundated, and only relieved by giving. Wise altruism anticipates, prepares, and causes reciprocation, not ungratefulness, or loss of respect. With that in mind, what I suggest is not necessarily altruism; it is the neutrality between egotism and altruism, which is precisely the key to cooperation and leadership.
We need to make drastic changes in our mentalities and policies, and procedures to bring about change within nations, in order to solve problems. Lawmakers feel compelled to continue to make laws, but they shun their responsibility of limiting or eradicating laws. The legislative branch must at least have the intentions of limiting or eliminating law that has passed into legislation. The legislative branch needs to communicate more with the people. They need to do this passionately, and emotionally. They must provide more incentives. Such as, if these crimes decrease, the law will become more lenient. Basically, the legislative branch must give the people a chance to earn the trust they deserve. The government does not deserve our trust, nor do we deserve theirs, that is why this must be an effort of both sides. The president needs to put his ego aside, and emulate his people, by adapting the best understanding of morality once it arises. He basically needs to work with everyone, as the face of democracy. He must represent the people and as Plato would call it, “the good” not himself. What is divinely correct is preeminent to what is politically correct. The only time the president is obliged to implement his personal power is when the people fail to understand morality. Only when the president discovers and understands what is best for society, is he/she allowed to pursue his/her personal interest. If the president demands something that coincides with the Will of God, we must abide and respect his/he decision even if we feel it may entail precarious risks. Forcing a nation to invade another country is a decision the congress must approve of, and hopefully, the congress is one with the people, which would make this a democratic practice, not that of an oligarchy. If the people demand military withdrawal, or reformation, they must be granted their wish.
Separation of church and state keeps government out of religion and religion out of government, but not spirituality and identity out of politics. If politics and God are completely separate, conflict, devolution and/or dissolution will become inevitable. If this is the case, politics will become an empty and corrupt practice, while God will be misconstrued, ignored and fantasized or idolized, rather than revered and worshiped. For the courageous that held onto his/her enlightenment, he/ she will be incessantly mocked, disparaged, and judged by the majority, which usually, will isolate or expatriate him/her from society. These unfortunate circumstances will increase the pressure for the faithful, and overwhelm the stress he or she must bear to maintain his/her faith and responsibility. What I am describing is the prelude to dark ages. The people must be awakened!
The government must seek to unite people, not divide them. The government must seek to help society, not hurt society. The government must seek to amend rivalries, not fuel them.
One may research biblical philosophy and say vengeance is not condemned. I agree with this. But I also must make it understood that in no way, shape, or form is vengeance condoned. Revenge is a privilege, like free will, which has costs. Justice by man is achieved not by condemnation, or violence, or judgment but by righteousness and clemency. We can say something is wrong, but not someone is wrong. Justice is an act of God, which is far more powerful and lasting than any vengeance man can inflict.
An exile without prejudice is a hero destined for leadership. This is the return of The Prince; Machiavellian is the past; the future we can only hope to understand. I speak to the government and the people. I will not beg for acceptance, only welcome adherence.
Sincerely,
Zachary Scott McBride