such a big subject: but yes basically to enjoy happiness "the now." One needs to remove all that prevents this occuring from bad realtionships to guilt to unrealistic desires. and so on. I would recommed starting with eastern philosophy and a change in perspective, then it is possible to start the process of "I squared." Intellegence looking at intelligence as robert anton wilson calls it!
In Russian we have a saying - "slay the dragon within you". It comes from a perestroika-era film, in which a wandering knight slays an oppressive dragon who had ruled a kingdom for 400 years, with his subjects thoroughly brainwashed (it is implied that the dragon is a human, who convinced the others that he is a dragon). As soon as the dragon dies the people go into a violent frenzy, and when the knight comes back a year later he finds out that the dragon's favourite mayor claimed that he...
(cont.) slew the dragon and now rules as a "dragon-lite". When the knight reveals the truth the people immediately pledge allegiance to him. Then he realises that even though the dragon is gone he is still alive in their minds due to centuries of propaganda which led them to believe that they will not survive without a dragon-like ruler. He sees that his work is far from over, because in order to truly free them he has to slay the dragon within each of them, or get them to do it themselves.
So I agree that getting rid of the state will not fix all problems immediately. What Im not sure about is whether its better to go about helping people slay the dragon within themselves while the actual dragon is alive, or to get rid of the state first and then go about trying to reform people. Would the disappearance of the state make it easier or harder to convince people that the state is unnecessary? Or should we just be content that the dragon within us is dead and not worry about others?
"The reason we have these authoritarian institutions is because we're f*cked up"
Agreed. I think the reason support for the state and its prevalence is because lots of people prefer to have the state. Usually personal preferences are neither good nor bad...just preferences, but when it comes to the support of a state or authoritarianism, that IS a bad preference because it's preferring the evil of using coercion against others to impose your preferences.
I disagree on many points, mostly in terms of nuance and complexity, but I enjoyed your video. I think it makes a great starting point for discussion.
I disagree. I'm not sure what kind of life you lead which doesn't depend on other humans. I imagine that it's a life of deep denial.
"if working together creates conflict, why work together?"
Like life in general, everything is a mixture of positives and negatives. Sometimes conflict is inevitable, based on circumstances. Some may say that life IS conflict. Like I've been saying, it takes a profoundly contrived example to NOT socialize.
Point of clarification: are you saying that people who know why millions of people are dying around the world and how to prevent these death and are trying their hardest to teach the world how to prevent these deaths who get saddened on the thought that these preventable deaths will likely not end in their lifetimes have something mentally wrong with them?
I'm saying if it makes you incapable of living a happy life because you're so focused on it, then yes, something is mentally wrong with you. That's not a moral judgment so much as a realization.
The clothes I'm wearing, the computer I'm using to type this message, the apartment I'm in right now, even the chair I'm sitting on. All of these things were built by people, enabled by people, negotiated by people existing in an organized society. Even the food I eat and the air I breathe may be affected by the larger social context. We are intimately linked with one another when one really thinks about it.
I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. We exist in a social context.
"most people misinterpret what Rand was really all about"
Rand was so self-contradictory that this is the rational conclusion of her philosophy. It's impossible to follow her philosophy in it's pure form because it will inevitably lead to self contradiction or else some incredibly religious "leaps of faith" similar to any other religion. If you've studied Objectivism very much, you'll realize that there's constant dispute over pretty much anything she said except by the "true believers".
"how can anyone blame their problems on relationships?"
Because we are social animals and are bound by our social interactions in the same way that we are bound by physical reality.
Sure, we can imagine that we are alone on a desert island always fending for ourselves individually, but this is an extreme example and not realistic to the major problems we are talking about.
The greatest benefits we recieve as humans is working together, but it also creates the greatest conflicts.
I definitely agree with the notion that one can get so lost in fighting for a cause, that it makes you forget to actually live your life at the same time. Politics and philosophy, while important, shouldn't be the primary focus of your life - actually living it should be.
Harry Browne conveyed a similar idea in his early book "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World", and I definitely think there's a lot to be said for "thinking and feeling free" even if one can't live free.. After two years of disappointment trying to work inside the system to get Ron Paul elected, I realized it was a waste of time because I was using 'their" system. At the same time, I still think that civil disobedience and non-political activism is a good idea, if only to educate people.
I'd just like to add that revolutions are asinine. A revolution is the toppling of one government to establish another, and they have without exception always led to a state more oppressive than the previous one. This is quite obviously the only possible outcome of revolution given the reactionary character structure of the 6.4 billion anti-social psychotics living on planet earth today.
Well stated. Needs a LOT of expansion, but this is largely what I've been advocating. no "general revolution", but a series of evolutionary steps.
Right now, the vast majority do not WANT or UNDERSTAND liberty.
Those of us who do should of course preach it, but also live it. Gather like minded individuals who teach others what liberty means, and why it's important.
This, I think, will accomplish more in a shorter time than any 'revolution'.
I've been trying to tell you that the fundamental problem is mental illness. You've got it wrong though with regard to the etiology however. It isn't training to submit to authority. Dominance and submission are natural mammilian games. That's a part of our biology and has very little to do with the origins of the state. The real issue as I have already stated lies elsewhere(s).
Great video, like I always say, it goes back to childhood. The typical parent/child relationship usually creates the need for a state when the child reaches adulthood. Punishing or rewarding children to get them to bend to our will is what creates the need for a state, even if our will is good intentioned, what we need to do is give people choices and show them empathy and teach them the impact they have on others... Alfie Kohn says it so much better then me, read "Unconditional Parenting"
Alright ya, XO I agree with you alot here. NOT to spam, but if you want to watch my video "where I'm going" on my channel, I think you'd like it. I've gone away from the whole changing people's minds idea. If they really can't be argued with then what's the point? I'm going to focus on the vritous things in my life.
Ya know, I've thought about this alot XO. I'm glad that I discovered all of this while I was still relativly young (16 is when I originally came upon this). It allowed me to not delve to deeply into any physcological holes or any power struggle relationships that would be to hard for me to get out of. You don't see to be as fortunate as me though. =/
I remember maybe two years ago you and I both had new videos out on Eric Hoffer, whose ideas are right up this alley. As time goes on, I see more and more truth in what he says about the urge to change others.
I've come to the conclusion that politics is a complete and utter waste of time unless that's what one wants to do as a career. Following the news and voting makes less of a difference in the world than what I decided to eat for dinner on election day. (cont.)
The only way to hope to make a difference in politics is to devote one's life to it. If that's a person's primary career interest, then fine, but otherwise it's throwing one's life away.
I think I've made a solid case for my ethical claims already in past videos. I think this comment is intended to belittle me because, for whatever reason, you desperately want a perpetual argument about ethics.
Maybe you'll find some other channel to argue with people on.
When your ideas are more fully formed, I would love to read an extended description of what you mean on every level. I see a much, much longer blog, journal, or vlog in the works.
You're talking to yourself, btw. I figured I'd let you know since you've left more than one comment about a topic I already said I didn't want to discuss with you.
You know, I'm going to end this discussion now because neither of us is going to gain anything from it. The moment I try to argue that ethical rules have utility (and are thus not irrational) you'll say they aren't ethics, and this'll just end in a semantic clusterfuck.
nothing new, but thanks for reminding :) It is one of those thing that should be remembered everytime you try to force someone to change their minds (like I did with statist people).
It takes mad skills and knowledge to try and do what I have been for many of you out here Shawn. And what impresses me, is that you are one of the few years who has realized the delusion, and just started being yourself. Now I have respect for a person who can do that, and have the courage to admit it to the world.
"A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:"
It is what I have been doing for you guys for quite some years now with all of this.
See if one is not able to admit and deal with their own Inner Truths, Those are the people who have the hardest time understanding and realizing what a Revolution is. Lets Study the word.
Some will acuse you of the betryal of revolution. Not me - as I am no revolutionary and no anarchist. I have a different problem. Do people sustain the State because they have been fucked up and abused? Maybe true - matter of opinion. I'd say some hierarchy is also effective in fight against the nature inside and outside organisms like primates. Life is fight, and in any fight those who are able to give and obey orders are the only ones who can win. Maybe life itself is fucked up. Merry Xmas!
I agree that it's very liberating to simply let it all go. But in a way its a type of self-imposed ignorance.
There is both irrational and rational worry that people have about the system. I'm all for just forgetting the political crap, don't vote if you don't have to -- don't even watch the news, etc.
But we still do have to remember we are surrounded by people who enforce stupid little rules. Not paying your taxes for example is very dangerous -- no matter how attractive the prospect is.
such a big subject: but yes basically to enjoy happiness "the now." One needs to remove all that prevents this occuring from bad realtionships to guilt to unrealistic desires. and so on. I would recommed starting with eastern philosophy and a change in perspective, then it is possible to start the process of "I squared." Intellegence looking at intelligence as robert anton wilson calls it!
krustyegg 1 year ago
Woah I just realized you got bleeped and censored on here. Weird.
cellardoor01 2 years ago
I think your projecting your own problems.
asleeperj 2 years ago
Libertarianism is the philosophy for the common man.
asleeperj 2 years ago
I think your genius my friend. (Luke Clayborn Hopper spreaking)
glopur0 2 years ago
In Russian we have a saying - "slay the dragon within you". It comes from a perestroika-era film, in which a wandering knight slays an oppressive dragon who had ruled a kingdom for 400 years, with his subjects thoroughly brainwashed (it is implied that the dragon is a human, who convinced the others that he is a dragon). As soon as the dragon dies the people go into a violent frenzy, and when the knight comes back a year later he finds out that the dragon's favourite mayor claimed that he...
vonPeterhof 2 years ago 3
(cont.) slew the dragon and now rules as a "dragon-lite". When the knight reveals the truth the people immediately pledge allegiance to him. Then he realises that even though the dragon is gone he is still alive in their minds due to centuries of propaganda which led them to believe that they will not survive without a dragon-like ruler. He sees that his work is far from over, because in order to truly free them he has to slay the dragon within each of them, or get them to do it themselves.
vonPeterhof 2 years ago 3
So I agree that getting rid of the state will not fix all problems immediately. What Im not sure about is whether its better to go about helping people slay the dragon within themselves while the actual dragon is alive, or to get rid of the state first and then go about trying to reform people. Would the disappearance of the state make it easier or harder to convince people that the state is unnecessary? Or should we just be content that the dragon within us is dead and not worry about others?
vonPeterhof 2 years ago
"The reason we have these authoritarian institutions is because we're f*cked up"
Agreed. I think the reason support for the state and its prevalence is because lots of people prefer to have the state. Usually personal preferences are neither good nor bad...just preferences, but when it comes to the support of a state or authoritarianism, that IS a bad preference because it's preferring the evil of using coercion against others to impose your preferences.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
I disagree on many points, mostly in terms of nuance and complexity, but I enjoyed your video. I think it makes a great starting point for discussion.
ChrisBovington 2 years ago
"Working together is not a human thing:
I disagree. I'm not sure what kind of life you lead which doesn't depend on other humans. I imagine that it's a life of deep denial.
"if working together creates conflict, why work together?"
Like life in general, everything is a mixture of positives and negatives. Sometimes conflict is inevitable, based on circumstances. Some may say that life IS conflict. Like I've been saying, it takes a profoundly contrived example to NOT socialize.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
Point of clarification: are you saying that people who know why millions of people are dying around the world and how to prevent these death and are trying their hardest to teach the world how to prevent these deaths who get saddened on the thought that these preventable deaths will likely not end in their lifetimes have something mentally wrong with them?
Shezmu 2 years ago
I'm saying if it makes you incapable of living a happy life because you're so focused on it, then yes, something is mentally wrong with you. That's not a moral judgment so much as a realization.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
THINK ABOUT THE NEXT GENERATION
mwhistley 2 years ago
"How so?"
The clothes I'm wearing, the computer I'm using to type this message, the apartment I'm in right now, even the chair I'm sitting on. All of these things were built by people, enabled by people, negotiated by people existing in an organized society. Even the food I eat and the air I breathe may be affected by the larger social context. We are intimately linked with one another when one really thinks about it.
I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. We exist in a social context.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
"most people misinterpret what Rand was really all about"
Rand was so self-contradictory that this is the rational conclusion of her philosophy. It's impossible to follow her philosophy in it's pure form because it will inevitably lead to self contradiction or else some incredibly religious "leaps of faith" similar to any other religion. If you've studied Objectivism very much, you'll realize that there's constant dispute over pretty much anything she said except by the "true believers".
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
"how can anyone blame their problems on relationships?"
Because we are social animals and are bound by our social interactions in the same way that we are bound by physical reality.
Sure, we can imagine that we are alone on a desert island always fending for ourselves individually, but this is an extreme example and not realistic to the major problems we are talking about.
The greatest benefits we recieve as humans is working together, but it also creates the greatest conflicts.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
I definitely agree with the notion that one can get so lost in fighting for a cause, that it makes you forget to actually live your life at the same time. Politics and philosophy, while important, shouldn't be the primary focus of your life - actually living it should be.
GamblerJustice 2 years ago
Revolution Vs Rebellion- A. Camus
&
i only disagree with your prognosis in that
Personal Happiness = distraction, as opposed to the goal
PoliticalPhilomather 2 years ago
I agree with you, very good ideas.
illuded 2 years ago
Harry Browne conveyed a similar idea in his early book "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World", and I definitely think there's a lot to be said for "thinking and feeling free" even if one can't live free.. After two years of disappointment trying to work inside the system to get Ron Paul elected, I realized it was a waste of time because I was using 'their" system. At the same time, I still think that civil disobedience and non-political activism is a good idea, if only to educate people.
RationalDischarge 2 years ago
I'd just like to add that revolutions are asinine. A revolution is the toppling of one government to establish another, and they have without exception always led to a state more oppressive than the previous one. This is quite obviously the only possible outcome of revolution given the reactionary character structure of the 6.4 billion anti-social psychotics living on planet earth today.
icfnord 2 years ago
Well stated. Needs a LOT of expansion, but this is largely what I've been advocating. no "general revolution", but a series of evolutionary steps.
Right now, the vast majority do not WANT or UNDERSTAND liberty.
Those of us who do should of course preach it, but also live it. Gather like minded individuals who teach others what liberty means, and why it's important.
This, I think, will accomplish more in a shorter time than any 'revolution'.
Kbiomech 2 years ago
Okay, now I want to know want Xo is talking about with revolutions, cause it came off to me as if XO was referring to non-violent revolutions.
Shezmu 2 years ago
I've been trying to tell you that the fundamental problem is mental illness. You've got it wrong though with regard to the etiology however. It isn't training to submit to authority. Dominance and submission are natural mammilian games. That's a part of our biology and has very little to do with the origins of the state. The real issue as I have already stated lies elsewhere(s).
icfnord 2 years ago
Stefan Molyeux has been speaking on the idea that the state is an effect of the family for years, are you familiar?
OpineTime 2 years ago
Molyneux*
OpineTime 2 years ago
John Lennon could not have said it better, even in his masterpiece "Imagine". You nailed it.
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Nationalism and religion are a curse on humanity
monkeypeopleofearth 2 years ago
@monkeypeopleofearth
violent crime won't magically go away just because religion or nations dissappear.
Slug99 2 years ago
@Slug - true, but there wouldn't be any governments to disarm the victims.
Shezmu 2 years ago
Great video, like I always say, it goes back to childhood. The typical parent/child relationship usually creates the need for a state when the child reaches adulthood. Punishing or rewarding children to get them to bend to our will is what creates the need for a state, even if our will is good intentioned, what we need to do is give people choices and show them empathy and teach them the impact they have on others... Alfie Kohn says it so much better then me, read "Unconditional Parenting"
UnschoolingEagle 2 years ago
Alright ya, XO I agree with you alot here. NOT to spam, but if you want to watch my video "where I'm going" on my channel, I think you'd like it. I've gone away from the whole changing people's minds idea. If they really can't be argued with then what's the point? I'm going to focus on the vritous things in my life.
drew335533 2 years ago
Ya know, I've thought about this alot XO. I'm glad that I discovered all of this while I was still relativly young (16 is when I originally came upon this). It allowed me to not delve to deeply into any physcological holes or any power struggle relationships that would be to hard for me to get out of. You don't see to be as fortunate as me though. =/
drew335533 2 years ago
I remember maybe two years ago you and I both had new videos out on Eric Hoffer, whose ideas are right up this alley. As time goes on, I see more and more truth in what he says about the urge to change others.
I've come to the conclusion that politics is a complete and utter waste of time unless that's what one wants to do as a career. Following the news and voting makes less of a difference in the world than what I decided to eat for dinner on election day. (cont.)
nine9s 2 years ago
The only way to hope to make a difference in politics is to devote one's life to it. If that's a person's primary career interest, then fine, but otherwise it's throwing one's life away.
nine9s 2 years ago
I think I've made a solid case for my ethical claims already in past videos. I think this comment is intended to belittle me because, for whatever reason, you desperately want a perpetual argument about ethics.
Maybe you'll find some other channel to argue with people on.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
When your ideas are more fully formed, I would love to read an extended description of what you mean on every level. I see a much, much longer blog, journal, or vlog in the works.
TruthHidden 2 years ago
You're talking to yourself, btw. I figured I'd let you know since you've left more than one comment about a topic I already said I didn't want to discuss with you.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
You know, I'm going to end this discussion now because neither of us is going to gain anything from it. The moment I try to argue that ethical rules have utility (and are thus not irrational) you'll say they aren't ethics, and this'll just end in a semantic clusterfuck.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Define "Ideology"
XOmniverse 2 years ago
nothing new, but thanks for reminding :) It is one of those thing that should be remembered everytime you try to force someone to change their minds (like I did with statist people).
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Thank you!!! This is so true.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
or as some would say: social conditioning = bad
Virtueman1 2 years ago
Good one, X-man! :)
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
Bravo :-)
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
I can't rate this video high enough.
chris3443 2 years ago 3
It takes mad skills and knowledge to try and do what I have been for many of you out here Shawn. And what impresses me, is that you are one of the few years who has realized the delusion, and just started being yourself. Now I have respect for a person who can do that, and have the courage to admit it to the world.
peace97914101 2 years ago
Excellent video. Very succinct statement on the root cause of tyranny.
rickyPG 2 years ago
/wiki/Revolution
"A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:"
It is what I have been doing for you guys for quite some years now with all of this.
peace97914101 2 years ago
See if one is not able to admit and deal with their own Inner Truths, Those are the people who have the hardest time understanding and realizing what a Revolution is. Lets Study the word.
peace97914101 2 years ago
The Revolution has always been going. Pretty cool huh?
peace97914101 2 years ago
Some will acuse you of the betryal of revolution. Not me - as I am no revolutionary and no anarchist. I have a different problem. Do people sustain the State because they have been fucked up and abused? Maybe true - matter of opinion. I'd say some hierarchy is also effective in fight against the nature inside and outside organisms like primates. Life is fight, and in any fight those who are able to give and obey orders are the only ones who can win. Maybe life itself is fucked up. Merry Xmas!
danielsondanielson 2 years ago
Sounding a lot like stefan molyneux. "all your relationships are fucked up" is way too much of a blanket statement.
EyesLikeHoles 2 years ago
I never said all of your relationships are fucked up. I do think most people have fucked up relationships though.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
I agree that it's very liberating to simply let it all go. But in a way its a type of self-imposed ignorance.
There is both irrational and rational worry that people have about the system. I'm all for just forgetting the political crap, don't vote if you don't have to -- don't even watch the news, etc.
But we still do have to remember we are surrounded by people who enforce stupid little rules. Not paying your taxes for example is very dangerous -- no matter how attractive the prospect is.
Individualism101 2 years ago 2
I'll take this to heart.
tiecuando 2 years ago