Finding Cogitative Harmony in a Statist World

The solution to the quandary of 'the state' is to see it for what it is: an illusion. 'The state' does not exist, it is only the sum of the people who act as though it is real, who believe it is real, that makes it appear to them as though 'the state' is real at all.

Those who do believe that 'the state' is real, is indispensable, has good utility, believe also 'the state' is endowed with powers no individual, and therefore no group of individuals, can legitimately take upon themselves: the initiation of the use of force. Use of force in self-defence is permissible but use of force to exert one's will against others is never permissible except, apparently, in the imaginations of those who believe in the legitimacy and utility of 'the state'.

It is not 'the state' that beats a protester, that steals goods from reluctant tax-payer, that kidnaps and imprisons a dissident, that goes to war, that bombs families in their homes. It is the sum only of the actions of the individuals who believe in 'the state'. Those 'statists' are lost in a delusion, true, but there are masses of them. It is a mass delusion! It is a mass delusion in a belief in a thing that does not exist but that they, the believers, believe does exist and that they believe has the right to powers that exceed those that are natural to a man.

The believers believe the power of 'the state' is legitimately greater than the natural powers belonging to any individual, that 'the state' rightly has extra powers, that 'the state' holds the right to powers above the natural powers, that 'the state' rightly has a super-natural power. This sort of belief is a religious belief, an unquestioning dogma, a blind capitulation to an inevitable existence and legitimacy.

And belief in this religion, the religion of the supernatural power that is 'the state', is so deeply ingrained in almost everybody, so all encompassing and fundamentally indoctrinated, it is a cult. A cult religious belief. Not 'like' a cult, it is a cult.

 
So I do not want to add to the worries for you, dear reader.  You have, no doubt, found all this 'stuff' you see wrong with the world, and, I trust, concerned yourself with seeking solutions; but if you are going to worry you may as well worry about the right thing! The solution we should be seeking is that we need to get rid of the false paradigm of the cult belief in the religion of 'the state'. For whilst we retain 'the state' we will never be free of the harmful effects caused by 'the state'. (Because the very existence of 'the state' is the cause of the greatest propensity of harmful effects).

I accept: it is not so easy to see this solution, to the harm, as leaving an effective mode-of-operation for human society to function within.  I know, I understated.  To see this requires a pealing back of the multi-generational layers of statist indoctrination, from childhood, from school, from home, from life, from almost every direction.  Indoctrination that we are all constantly exposed to.

To realise, to learn how to see, that humanity is infinitely capable of finding solutions, good and proper solutions, without central planning and control, is to see that: not only would the problems caused by 'the state' be dispensed with, in its absence, but that the utility of a stateless human society is far more efficient, faster to react, more creative of wealth, more innovative, infinity more peaceful, more compassionate, more durable, infinity more logical, defiantly more enjoyable, more harmonious and on and on, without the illegitimate false utility of 'the state' utterly spoiling it all, life on this Earth, for almost everybody.

Better still: you will also realise, upon reaching this conclusion, that you already are free yourself. That whilst 'the state' may try, and often succeed, in forcing you to need to comply, 'the state' can not force you to believe in it any more. 'The state' cannot make you believe it is moral, legitimate, truthful, necessary.

And with that understanding, that understanding of your existing, innate, freedom, your sovereignty within yourself, with that understanding comes happiness. Anger occasionally, perhaps from frustration and such, but the happiness of being a free man, albeit for now in an un-free world still burdened with the primitive doctrine of rulers being necessary, but an understanding that brings happiness nonetheless.

The End of the State is Not the End of Governance (since Individuals Self-Regulate their Property Ownership Interests)

The phrase 'public property' is indeed an oxymoron, a nonsense, (one in which also an important 'something' of the nonsense of 'the state' is relieved).

In GB, where I live, not only is 'public property' actually described as 'Crown Property', (distinct from the personal property of the Queen, such as Windsor Castle), additionally 'The Crown' is considered the ultimate owner of all property, so, for example, if a property is found to have no title holder it 'reverts' to The Crown.

I consider it proper that the owner of land should be entitled to make whatsoever demands they should prefer of those who, duly informed, choose to be within that property's boundary. That could included everyone calling the owner the King, establishing an elite group amongst favoured tenants and such. A 'King' could even require that a tax was payable on all tenant's income and spending - if such a system could be made to actually work.

It would not be permissible for anyone, including a self proclaimed King, to obtain property through force nor to force people to move in and then remain on their land, their realm, or suffer conditions if they did not wish.

Within ourselves, our minds, our bodies and the product of our labour we all are sovereigns too, so whilst a self-proclaimed 'King' can demand people within their realm act as though they are they are the only sovereign if the 'subjects' are of clear mind they know that whilst they may be required to act in such a way, in that estate, it is not true and they can move.

This proposition is only apparently so quizzical when it is a question of scale. If the King's realm is a large island we can see it to be very much like a ruling monarch and if it is a modest building on the edge of town we see it is very much like an eccentric boarding house.

I call not for the end of 'government' although I presume that with the end of 'the state' the specific management system of 'the state' will be dispensed with too. That does not mean there would not be systems of governance, every organisation beyond a certain size employees some such system.

An individual employs self-governance and a group of self-governing individuals have a system of governance which is perhaps only the combined effect of their individual self-governance but that is their system of governance none the less. Every functional system must employ a system of governance of some type and form - be self regulating. There will always be systems of government in human society but the duties and appearance of systems of government in a stateless society will surely just be something unlike those of 'the state'.

'The state' is a different entity to a government. The government of a 'state' derives its supposed power only from 'the state'. It is the authority of 'the state' that is illegitimate and immoral and its implementation unnecessary and of no proper utility. A government without power is only able to govern by voluntary subscription - more like an association of some sort or other. Government then is simply 'the system by which affairs of human society is conducted' whatsoever that may be.

If all property can only be that which belongs to individuals, sovereigns within their property if you like, and the system of governance best suited to optimising any and all property is the self-regulation of the individuals who are owners of property then I think we can derive that such a system of governance will be the one that is both best for individuals and the optimisation of all property.

In the Cult Religion of Evil - Beelzebub Rules

The system of 'the state' is a system only of perversion. 'The state' is based on a monopoly of violent force, a right which no individual can legitimately or morally hold and so, in turn, no collective of individuals can hold either.

 No matter what percentage of people say they want a monopoly of force to be placed in the hands of 'the state' it is a perversion of morality and of legitimacy. So therefore, being a permanent condition, 'the state' has this fundamental perversion at its very core.

The only way to eradicate the perversion permanently is to reject the belief in the morality and legitimacy of 'the state'. The belief in 'the state' is irrational. It is not that belief in 'the state' is 'like' some kind of religion, with 'the state' just an all powerful but imaginary God, it is a religion with 'the state' a God that believers believe is real!

'The state' only appears to exist because of all the people who believe it to exist and act as though it exists but as soon as those people stopped believing in the existence of the God of the state, poof! It would be seen to have never existed. So we can accept 'the state' does not exist. We can accept 'the state' only appears to exist whilst people believe in it and act as if it is real.

 

We can also see that; as a religious belief, the religious belief in 'the state' is not one people just come around to understand and accept, it is a belief that is rooted in indoctrination. About the only thing that 'the state' is really good at is indoctrinating the public into unquestioning belief in the legitimacy and morality of 'the state' and in the necessity and utility of 'the state' too - the process is fundamental to the schooling system and much else besides.

The belief in the state is so deeply indoctrinated, so widespread, so all encompassing across human society, so unquestioned and so apparently fundamental to almost everyone's perception of humanity that it is nothing less than being a cult. A religious cult. A religious cult belief in a false God.

The wish to find and elect only good people is not the solution, has never worked, will not work and cannot work. How can the all powerful cult of 'the state' always make sure that: people who are not good people, 'bad people', (or good people who turn bad) do not get into, (or remain in), positions of power to then abuse that power. The power allowed by 'the state', having an apparently legitimate and moral right to use force, is a power most attractive to 'bad' people.

Good people, really good people, do not want that power strongly enough to fight their way past the clamoring of 'bad' people, the corruption, the lies, the aggression, the compromises necessary to gain and hold effective 'state' office. 'The state' is a bad person's game. To stop the perversion from setting in permanently the only solution is to bring about an end to the religious belief in the cult of 'the state'. Nothing less.

P.S.  Please excuse the rather vulgar URL - I was trying an experiment in building traffic only to now find it less easy to dispense with than originally envisioned (and slightly amusing too).

Crime and Incarceration In a Stateless Society

At the core of 'the state' is the coercive threat and use of violent force. If 'the state' did not reserve for itself the use of force it would fail. In general people may appear to willingly comply with the requirements of the state but that is either because:

* they would act in that way regardless, (they would generally not want to transgress against other people's property), or
* they would act in a different way to the edicts of 'the state' but do not because of the prospective repercussions, or
* they believe it is moral to comply with the edicts of 'the state'.

'The state' is central to, sets the tone of, modern human society in great part. Because people individually agree that employing the use of force is only moral in defence of self and property and agree that groups of people have no more right to employ force than they do individually, there is an unanswered dichotomy, a dissonance, between the circumstances when an individual can morally use force and when 'the state' makes use of it. There is no moral justification for 'the state' to use force outside of those same perimeters of an individual's moral legitimacy.

When 'the state' employs morally illegitimate violent force it attempts to set itself apart from human morality and instead endows itself with a false morality to break this code. Without violent force at its disposal 'the state' ends. 'The state' is nothing without the use of violent force. 'The state' is nothing but violent force. 'The state' is violence.

This violence, which is 'the state', is the cause of enormous harm that runs through human society as a virus. 'The state' breaks the moral code that is the foundation upon which a harmonious human society should be founded. The overall effect of this violence at the core of 'the state' is that the infection spreads through human society and especially manifests in weak points within the social order.

So how would a stateless society deal with crime? In a fully functional stateless human society crime would be vastly reduced as a result of having taken the use of faux legitimated violence out of the core of society. There would still be crime one can suppose, human nature remains and part of that may be for some to still act immorally, against others and their property, if they can get away with it. So assuming there would remain some crime in a stateless society it would need to be dealt with or the immoral people would simply be unconstrained and encouraged.

The lesson to be understood when accepting the utility of a stateless human society is that: answers to every supposed problem are possible to find and then develop. All the people working toward finding resolutions to the needs of society will develop a plethora of solutions and the best of those will rapidly be widely employed. Further, attempting to predict what these solutions will be is as ridiculous, and likely as inaccurate, as it would have been attempting to describe how society and the economy would appear and function after the abolition of slavery. Slavery was not ceased because a 'slavery-free' future was planed and understood in detail but because the immorality of slavery demanded it was made to end. So it must be demanded that 'the violent state' is made to end too.

I do have many ideas of cause as to how free-market policing and justice would take place in a system offering a level of service and accessibility clearly unobtainable when these functions of human society are usurped and monopolised by 'the state'. I too have ideas for what would replace 'the state' operated penal system. The focus of that would greatly depend on what the free-market demanded and what the free-market judicial system could legitimately find legally sound and therefore moral.

I suppose when people cannot be made, by the threat of violent force, to pay to incarcerate offenders there will be a very different criteria emerge as to what is realistically desirable, such as cost-effective achievable goals for reform, deeper psychoanalytical understanding, life-retraining and so on. People who had to be removed from society because of the danger they presented would need to also be accommodated within a system, but clearly; being faced with an entire population entitled to carry whatsoever means of protection they felt prudent the population of hardened criminals would soon reduce to manageable numbers too.

The 9/11 Epiphany

It was through realising the 'US government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory' is clearly an outright lie, that, searching for solutions, I came to the conclusion, the understanding, that those who believe in the religion of 'the state' form the most dangerous cult in the history of humanity. 

It is the belief in the legitimacy and necessity of 'the state' that empowers it, that makes it appear to be real.  It is not real, 'the state' only exists because people believe it is real and act as if it is real.  You think it is real?  show it to me, not its actors, not its buildings, its papers, its tanks, its schools, its violence.  Show it to me if it is real.

The world may always have bad people who want to cause and profit from harm.  The vast number of them, the psychopathic, gravitate to make use of the power this belief in 'the state' enables.  There is no possibility of restraining 'the state' to prevent its abuse (the USA is proof of this - the most liberally conceived nation in the history of humanity has turned into the most massive war machine in the history of humanity).  There is no modification of the model possible to prevent it from becoming a monster for, for no matter how great or small, it is always, and only can ever be, a monster (or a baby monster in the making).

The great thing about 9/11 - the one 'good' thing - is that: to those who are capable of opening their eyes, their minds, of doing the work, of undoing and setting aside a lifetime of indoctrination, to those capable, they can see that 9/11 was a colossal lie.   Once this is truly realised, really accepted, it is then evident that no other persons, properly informed and who examine the facts, can be of any other conclusion.  It is then logical that not only the US government but the governments of the whole world must also realise this evident truth too. 

So how can the governments of the world's nations continue to operate with such a colossal falsehood in their midsts and yet still be trusted, still be believed in?  They cannot.

How many more lies have been dealt to humanity, before and since, by governments?  How much harm?  How much stolen prosperity?  How much squandered happiness?  How many lives?  Plenty I say. 

Once the paradigm is shattered, once one truly breaks free from the indoctrination that 'the state' is real and valuable, once one learns to see that, far from struggle, without the belief in 'the state' humanity will thrive, one learns to see that 'the state' has caused humanity's progress to be wickedly thwarted and perverted.

When free from the belief one can see: whilst humanity has the propensity for good - that people are intrinsically humane, the opposite is true of 'the state'.  Without the use of force, the coercive threat of violence, with that faux legitimacy denied from 'the state' the state collapses, ineffectual.  The power that 'the state' is dependent upon does not legitimately exist for any individual, does not exist for any group of individuals, majority or not.  'The state' only exerts the power of violent force because it has, granted to itself, that monopoly.  That is, at its centre and fundamental to it, outright evil.

So not only is the religious belief in 'the state' a cult belief, it is a cult based in evil to its very core.  And the only reason why the world is not an even bigger mess, than it clearly is, is because that evil, the evil of 'the state', is moderated by the fundamental good inherent in humanity.

And you have the gall, the failure of vision, the intellectual weakness, to suggest I am brainwashed. I can only laugh or weep.

A response to an earlier comment

If I refuse to pay tax it is not 'my' taxes that I refuse to pay, I don't own them. They only become 'my' taxes if I accept them, (if I accept the paradigm of the state as being true, real and correct). I may pay them because I understand the negative consequences I am threatened with if I do not (and I may hand my Rolex to a mugger too but that does not mean I accept he is entitled to rob me - I just don't want to get stabbed).

The threat is not from the 'state' or from the state's 'government'. The threat is from the individuals who would carry-out the threatened consequences under the auspices of their belief that: whilst as individuals they understand they are not entitled to regularly extort from me a proportion they judge correct from my property by threats of violent force and kidnap, with the special office they accept from other individuals, who they believe to be in 'authority' over human society, they are under the delusion they are entitled to act under such irrational orders or mandates.

If nobody believed in or even knew of the concept of the state the concept of the state would not have any effect. It is only the belief in and acceptance of the concept of the state that causes people to act as though it is a legitimate construct.

Conversely if nobody believed in or even knew of the concept of Human Society, human society would still have an effect. If people were then introduced to the concept they would say: "Oh yes, we understand, we have one of those. This is the way we already live together and cooperate".
It is not necessary to force belief in and to force acceptance of the concept of Human Society to cause people to act as though it is a legitimate construct.

There are many many different choices of political system by which a 'state' can exert its control over human society. If a state charged no tax it would follow that it would not need a robust mechanism to collect such revenues. Conversely if a state required the payment of an exorbitant level of taxation it will need to have a robust system in place. That can be a system of precise evaluation and unstoppable collection. That can be a system of providing justification and public support for taxation. The state has a plethora of such controls at its disposal.

If a state turns up socialism, gives widely approved of and more abundant social benefit, it can turn down its more totalitarian methods. There is a cost/benefit equation to be enjoyed between all of these systems and finding the most productive series of balances is the preferred option. The USSR has shown their totalitarianism, driven greatly by warring political idealogical factions and disparate oligarchies, was not the most productive means by which to function.

China has more recently found a different mix where currently their authoritarianism and global-corporate/capitalism appear rather odd bed fellows.

In the UK the system flips polarity vaguely with a minuscule shifting between socialism and corporatism, the two also constantly oozing closer together and further from the relatively liberal society we once enjoyed.

You state "it would be difficult, if not impossible, for capitalism to exist on a large scale without a state" but you do not expound meaningfully on this outstanding proclamation.

Capitalism is no more than trading between people. It is an innate human quality and the fabric upon which humanity is built. You drive the game to me, I kill it, we share it.

The state is the greatest burden on capitalism. All the functions which the state has usurped greatly precludes entrepreneurship from entering those markets. How can, for example, private education undercut a competitor who takes money via the threat of violent force from everyone regardless of if they have children or not.

How would you like your child schooled by protection racketeers who made every child attend an establishment where they controlled the entire curriculum for at least a dozen years. And you think they would not be trying to indoctrinate their pupils?

How would you like those same racketeers to be handing-out the licences to radio and TV stations (or in the case of the UK owning the BBC and even CNN at one point).

How is it my friend that when it was clear to every thinking person before the invasion of Iraq that the planned war was wrong and the claims of WMD were false yet 'the dog did not bark'. The UK and US went to war when the press and mainstream media should have TORN Blair and Bush into scraps - before the killing and destruction of a nation ever got started. And you have the gall, the failure of vision, the intellectual weakness, to suggest I am brainwashed. I can only laugh or weep.

It is corporatism that is dependent on government not capitalism. Corporate owners are greatly granted immunity from their debts and it is corporations who influence government to act in their interest.

Rather than resist what I have to say and defend your way of thinking why not show me you understand the proposition and yet then can argue against it? You fail to do that so I know your resistance is simply because you have not allowed yourself the opportunity to tentatively venture outside of the most basic statist mode of thinking.

Taxation is the gun in the room and social benifit is the illusion.

If the state resolved to reject all use of force to enforce its dictates how long would it last?  Who would agree to pay taxes if the outcome of denying their polite requests was zilch enforcement.  If you call for a socialist state with its redistribution of wealth but you fail to recognise the 'gun in the room' you are not being honest with yourself at the least.

I don't care what magical costumes and special powers statists wish to imagine for your state's authorities, if they come for peoples money and will use violent force to make that happen that is violent theft.

I agree with Socialists that there is a "wealthy elite" who "through manipulation of our politics and economies" are taking more than they rightly should derive.  That is the fact.

So the statist's solution is what: this system is not working so we need to do even more of it, exert more control, make more rules.

I say this system of state and government is and always will be manipulated to favour the very few.  That is what it is for.  The idea that government delivers wide ranging social benefit is an illusion to grant a form of justification for the illusionary edifice of the state to exist at all.

How long would the people support the concept of the state if the people could clearly see they derived absolutely no social benefit at all, just paid taxes.  That would clearly be slavery.

If a state taxed 1% and delivered nothing it may, via the use of force, just about survive.  But at 50% and never any apparent benefit at all, ever: revolution.

A tax of 30% and a degree of social benefit people swing along with it.  Add to that 14 years of government school indoctrination and a fundamentally uncritical media and they even can start to push-up the levels of taxation.

This balancing act is not how the state works, it is the illusion it creates of how it works whilst, in reality, the truly wealthy elite own and control politics and economies.

Without the state to do the bidding of this 'truly wealthy elite' they are cut-off from the control mechanism they depend upon, have invented, to maintain their advantage whilst the people fail to see the state for what it really is, a modern form of slavery, and instead think it is all about delivering social benefit and justice.

Statments

The point is the difference between Human society and a nation.  Human society exists, a nation is a construct - it does not materially exist.

Human society does and must endure. The state and its nation conversely are nothing but concepts.

The first requisite is to recognise that the concept of state is immoral, untenable. Why? Because it depends on an assumed right for its use of violent force (such as would not be a legitimate right for any individual).

The state is no more legitimate than slavery. The state depends upon a form of slavery - oppression of all humanity through its monopoly of force.

Without the state's monopoly of force it is clear the state would cease to exert control.

 
How will we harvest the cotton and the sugar-cane if we free the slaves? was undoubtedly asked. Who would have guessed the computerised mechanism that would soon be invented to do this work!

Just because we cannot guess exactly how the future will be should not preclude ending the immorality of forcing humanity to endure the unnecessary subjugation of the state.
 

The state is a self perpetuating entity (it would not last long if it was not). People accept the necessity for the existence of the state as if it were a fact of life the same as night and day - we are in fact brainwashed into being unquestioning of this paradigm.

Why do we have a state? Because it is a very effective means of controlling the human population for the ruling oligarchy and elites who, also via the mechanisms of the state, feed off the population.

The nation is a farm, a tax farm. The herd is a herd of humans. They are slaves: tax-slaves. The simple trick is not to let them know!

Like a forest needs no rulers to reach its optimum; the breadth of the ingeniousness of the sum of humanity is far more likely to whittle down to the best solutions than some psychopaths who have battled their way to the top of the political ladder.

I do not think I am a slave. I am not - I am a free man! I am a free man because I understand and do not accept the paradigm. That is all you need to be free. Yes I am oppressed. I have the wealth of my production stolen from me by the state and its zombie hordes who have never found independence of mind.

The state is the tool of the ultra wealthy, the elite and oligarchy. It is the state that is controlled and devised by them. It is the situations caused by the state which allows them to accumulate vast wealth whilst the masses scratch about and pay tax on every twist and turn - from birth to death.

Without the state there is no mechanism for oppression. Name the mechanism of oppression that is not the state.

I try not to put forward any of my ideas as to the specifics of how the world may run without the state.  People soon find they can workout such answers for themselves and once they start doing that they realise answers can be found for everything.  All we can and need to know is answers can be found and by a process of natural attrition the right answer too.

The State: An Inherently Psychopathic System.

If every leader, political and corporate, was totally accountable for their each-and-every action the world would be a different and better place. For one thing: no sane person would leave themselves open to such liabilities. For another: nobody could legitimately rise to such a position because the potential liabilities would exceed anybody’s ability to atone.

Why is it that the vast majority think we need a world where the few are expected to operate in such capacities; roles which clearly far exceed any person’s ability to atone. It is madness, it is the false paradigm within which the world is currently lost. It surely is one clear reason why people in such positions of power do, so frequently, abuse their office in so many ways; they know they never can be really called upon to atone for their actions.

A fellow who truly accepted full liability for every aspect of their tenure would have to act with great caution; but I fear persons of such qualities do not often rise to any such position.

By an almost inverted process of exclusion, those who manage to make it to be our leaders are most likely to be the least suitable. Indeed if one imagines how leaders would match against the Hare Psychopathy Check-list, for example, the conclusion is striking:

Factor 1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions 

Factor 2: Case history “Socially deviant lifestyle”
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioural control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behaviour problems
Revocation of conditional release 

Traits not correlated with either factor
Promiscuous sexual behaviour
Many short-term marital relationships
Criminal versatility
Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning

The mechanisms by which those who function within the state can be called upon to atone are the very mechanisms of that selfsame entity. That is why there is minimal opportunity for traction in such an endeavour; its their game which they need only play with their stacked deck and loaded dice.

All the while we accept the state we will be subjected to a system that can only inflict psychopaths onto the people. The system is inherently psychopathic.

To want to employ the state’s systems, to correct the inevitably undesirable actions of the state and its agents, only acts to endorses the very system that is erroneous by it nature, by its every dynamic.
 
People like Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, Bush and Blair are not the problem, they are a symptom. The disease is the state and such failed leaders are but one clearly evident pustule manifestation of the wretchedness it only creates.

Are we alone in realising these truths and our political masters all blind and foolish. I think not, not at all. If we can work it out the state’s police and security apparatus surely can too; let alone the various official enquiries.

Since I awoke, following 9/11, to the endless lies fed to the people, I have undergone a metamorphic transformation; a slow but complete reformation.
I believe I now can see our enemy, formed as Trompe-l’œil, shifting; one moment visible and the next the illusion.

My conclusion is not that the concept of the state is just broken and needs to be fixed. It is that the illusion of the state, including the notion of democracy, is nothing but a hollow sham to hold mankind stupefied into slavery.  The state works fine at what it truly intended for.

Take for poignant example whosoever it really is that has such vast financial resources sufficient to to lend so copiously to governments to break them, then yet more to bail them out and more still to break them even harder yet again. How will these people fare without their multi-layered control apparatus, woven into and including the state, to do their bidding? How will they do when control of the means of exchange is no longer in the hands of their false edifice called state?

The first battle is within ourselves. It is to cast-off the belief, the belief that the state is a necessary enterprise at all.  Every function of normal decent human existence and progress can be enacted without its central control; more effectively I will argue.  The authority of the state will always be usurped by the few at the expense of the many.

The Illusion Of Hate - Ivan Waters 19 Oct 2011.

When we see great tragedy in the world, we see war, we see hunger, we see destruction of our biosphere, and we say to ourselves, “People are really just terrible, aren't they? We are killing this planet and we are killing each other, we are going to destroy ourselves one day.”

Whether we all feel deeply that this is true or not, (I have certainly heard the suggestion tabled in a wide variety of forums over the years) this notion however, is part of an illusion.

Strangely enough, you could travel the world over and over in your lifetime and never stop meeting compassionate, calm, loving people. They are literally everywhere – people with respect, dignity and intelligence. Not all of us get it right all the time, but instinctively we help, or are helped, by others in our time of need.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that there are no people who wish to hurt others, either by crime or control or violence, who live in our streets, in our cities, maybe in our homes. A very few behave like this because they like it and don’t see it as wrong. The greater majority does so because they are desperate, alone, ill, lost, lonely and left on the exterior of a world they do not understand or wish to join. Are these then the people who shall be our ruin? The multitudes of good? Or the wounded? Are they the cause for this inevitable self-annihilation? Are they the source of this magical evil and wrong doing? I would suggest they are not.

It is clear now, due in part to the increased availability of information, that there is a very real and separate history that occurred apart from the one that we have been taught. And an intricate and deliberate plan to control and suppress humanity as a whole, uncovered. We know now that the wars we and our families fought, the depressions, the millions of dead around the world, the constant state of animosity we are kept in with our fellow man; the bad food or the no food, this is a direct result of a few families, with beds made long ago, squabbling over control of wealth and power and us, who they control absolutely through money. This betrayal strikes deep at the human heart because it means the way of honour we have been shown, that which allows us to feel as if we are the on the good guys’ side is suddenly and transparently devoid of any real honour, and the sacrifices made by our brave and dutiful are a glory only to our enslavement.

Previously shrouded in mystery, these people have been demystified, only recently called the illuminati or such other things, we now know some of them by name and it has become impossible for the instigators of this lie, to conceal it any longer. The unveiling of this deep-rooted and potent façade adds up to nothing short of a global human awakening, in a very real, cosmic sense.

Many, people throughout history have been aware of this illusion, some may have just glimpsed it, but thought it too fantastic a lie to be true; Some may have seen it more clearly than others, or seek the poets and minstrels, philosophers and painters. It’s all there! The fact is that we share the legacy of an ancient device of control that we are growing out of.

We know that money, banks, armies and religions with churches are the tools of this device. The battle for the upper hand on the stick of this mechanism has become increasingly complex and more and more destructive. The resources needed to power it are getting harder to come by and the cost of sustaining it is weighing heavily on this planet. Cracks are starting to form in the façade, and as the impossibility of keeping it intact grows, so to the number of people who see the deception will grow. This is happening now, we can all feel it; in fact it needs no real description, but more and more of us are starting to stare aghast at the trickery and illusion, and at how starkly different life could be, once we can begin to see again.

No longer is it the eccentric or the mad or the mystic talking of secret societies and conspiracy theories. Today, in middle America somewhere, two guys, neighbours, are sweeping the front drive together, scratching their heads saying, “You know Bob, I think the government did that 9/11 job. And they didn’t really even try to hide it that well, and if they’re doing that, then – hang on a minute – what else is going on around here?”

This is the start of a journey to discovering not only what has been done in our name, but to questioning what we will do now. To imagining what we could do on our own, free from this framework’s purpose to subdue and extract.

In North Africa, the Middle East – all over the world, there are people facing a separate lie, but the same one. There are different circumstances and different standards to achieve everywhere, but It has become clear that an overall reform of how we treat each other is necessary. It has also become clear that the first point on that agenda has got to be to end the cycle of violence and destruction and abuse which is created by allowing those who control all the wealth to control the government. This has been said many times before in history and may sound trite, but circumstances are allowing this idea to resonate on a never-before seen scale. At this point there is a calm urgency for it to take place. We will need courage and compassion as our guides for the coming transition. We are not going to kill ourselves or destroy the world, because we are the 99%.

Ivan Waters
19 Oct 2011.