Hi again Chris, thank you for sharing the video. Just watched it and it’s given me perspective as to how you found the Ubuntu concept intriguing and worth becoming passionate towards (and later, disintegrating).
Just a few quick thoughts on what I watched. For one, I don’t disagree with what the speaker is saying on the level of needing to reform our ways of being; I do however, contest his suggestion that this is the only approach needed, and his methods of propagating the Ubuntu concept is naive when there is still the element of human greed and gluttony to contend with in the world. Just because someone may be able to convert a small village (or commune) into a system that eliminates the need for money, will NOT guarantee that this community will be able to survive and thrive based on the premises that Michael has put forward. For the simple reason that greed and gluttony, or any of the 7 deadly sins — is a difficult flaw in our programming to eradicate with the ease that his method suggests (and as you, yourself, have found out first hand).
Regarding the rest of your post…
“However, it is equally logical that the Illuminati would tell us money evolved out of barter, in order to get us to accept money as being something we couldn’t live without.”
I contest that the Illuminati was the reason for why we have a monetary system in the first place. I believe that when you logically think about it, bartering and exchange is a natural by-product of human evolution. If there is anything to credit the Illuminati (and/or the banks) with, is the introduction of accrued interest and the concept of debt.
Think about this for a moment. Way back in the day when we lived in tribes, there must have been a hunter or a gatherer who had been particularly fortunate in getting food. Let’s say there is another tribal member who hasn’t been as lucky or skilled in being able to provide. This then creates an immediate category of a “have” and “have-not”. Regardless of whether such spoils are shared — a separation is created and the successful hunter/gatherer gains reputation (or “wealth” assuming he gives himself privileged access to whatever he manages to acquire) which then elevates and confers power — being that he is more successful than others at what he does.
He then becomes a person of value in the tribe, and others may depend on him depending on the success that they are having. This hypothetical person would likely then have the option of choosing to hunt/gather as little or as much as he would like. Remember now, that there is no incentive other than “reputation” within this Ubuntu concept, where everything is shared. But what happens when you reach the top? What happens when someone already receives the attention they crave, and desires more of it? Or what if the attention goes the other way, and people are talking behind his back about how he must be in league with Satan or evil forces in order for him to be as successful as he is? I’m sure you are familiar with the Salem Witch trials in which women were blamed for crop failures. This same mentality works the opposite way, also. The farmer who has a crop failure will likely feel jealousy towards the one who manages to out-do him. There is no reward or reputation for the ones who fail, and therein lies the risk of succumbing to evil and petty means to elevate oneself to “right” the balance.
To go further with this and describe why I think money/commerce is necessary, is that once you are in a position of power you can begin bartering your time and energy. Perhaps there will be days when you don’t feel like going out to hunt or gather because you have plenty of food already. Perhaps you have a neighbor who has consumed his share of food and is also not looking to hunt/gather on that particular day, but really does need food. The reasons could be an illness or injury or lack of skill/effort. What is obvious at this point, is to simply ask the person with a reserve of food, for food, without the exchange of effort.
This then, is where the “bartering” comes in. I will give you two apples in exchange for three apples tomorrow, let’s say. Tomorrow comes, and you get what you have “lent” out plus 1 more as a reward for your generosity. That’s the evil which is difficult to avoid, because nobody likes a mooch. Let’s say that the next day comes and the person you gave food to again doesn’t want to (or isn’t able) to go out and get the three apples he’d borrowed. This then creates distrust, and you may no longer be making any “deals” with this person in the future. Perhaps the person you lent apples towards DOES manage to get 3 apples the next day AND more. Perhaps he will be approached by someone offering him a better deal “I’ll give you six fish for 3 of those apples” rather than to pay back the “debt” from the day previous.
My point with all this is that bartering seems like a natural product of evolution. There is nothing wrong with the idea of bartering one’s time and energy in exchange for whatever it is you are desiring. What IS wrong, is the idea of charging “interest” and the concept of “debt”. This is where the “Illuminati” manages to “game” the system of natural bartering, by inventing value out of thin-air in the issuing of promissory notes, which are worthless by themselves, but collectively agreed upon to be used for the purpose of exchange and putting a “value” on individual effort. If we do not give incentive for those who work hard when others don’t, how then can we expect them to continue being “successful” if the fruits of the labor are being given away with little or no appreciation? This is the problem of socialism and ideas like guaranteed basic income.
“ We could actually give away our technology in the same way Aborigines give away spears, canoes and woven baskets, if we could free ourselves from money consciousness and separation consciousness”
I really would like to know how this could be possible in today’s modern society. We aren’t talking about spears or canoes, here. Within this model, how would we handle automobiles for instance? Is everyone entitled to own a car? If so, what TYPE of car would it be? Are we allowed only to give out Honda Civics? To each and every person who desires a vehicle? What about those of us who would like to own a Tesla or a Ferrari? How will we “give away” technology when many will not be content to drive Civics and want only the newest and best?
Should everyone own a top of the line Tesla? Or should we all be driving Civics? What if I hate having a Civic and want to own a Jeep? What if someone hates having a Jeep and would like a Dodge Challenger? Are we going to be manufacturing free cars of all types to satisfy the many different preferences out there that each of us have?
That’s just cars. Food, for instance, where despite your assertion that there is plenty of abundance in the world for everyone, the problem of over-fishing cannot be denied, among others. Not everyone will be able to enjoy a jar of caviar just because everything is shared. There is a finite amount to certain resources that we have. And who deserves what, is another question to be asking. There are 7 billion people on this planet, and if everyone wants tuna for lunch for a month or two straight; tuna will become extinct. Pure and simple. There is no getting around the scarcity argument. There is NO infinite variety of ANYTHING available on this planet.
Sobering article I’ve linked. Maybe it’s propaganda. I don’t know.
I don’t need to get into other questions, such as who gets what kind of laptop or what type of homes we would be allowed to live in, or what clothes we are allowed to wear. You can see how complex managing all these preferences and keeping up with resources, can be. Especially with 7 billion people.
The biggest problem with socialism and Ubuntu, is not allowing for individual expression. Perhaps this is something that needs to be reformed, also. Separation is going to occur no matter what type of system we live under. Even if the differences are purely biological, as evidenced by the number of races that we have. Asian, Caucasian, etc.
“ I believe in a “hundred years time, all the problems of today will have been solved; or else I would wake up to find the Earth lifeless as the result of a nuclear war or climate change, or possibly ruled by AI.”
Sadly, I am seeing the likelihood of being ruled by AI to be the outcome we will see in a hundred years from now. BUT! This might actually be a good solution. Because despite what I have written above about scarcity, we can usher in the “information and resource management” age using AI to coordinate what goes where and who gets what. However, this requires full globalization in order for such AI to be effective. This means, no borders and full access to the resources of every square inch of this planet. This is why I earlier prompted you to consider the positive benefit of a one-world government, because I think it’s an inevitable necessity if the human race wishes to survive and later, traverse the stars.
And… whew.. this rant of mine is going for longer than it should… It’s not going to come without a painful period of transition. You’re right. You may complain about the democratization of countries like North Korea or Iran and the Rothschilds, but this may actually bea needed step towards global governance. It HAS to happen if we desire to pool the collective resources of the planet together and provide the utopia that you and I wish to see. Again, the ends justify the means, although I find some fault with that concept as I prefer more transparency in what the plans of the “elite” happen to have for us. You may already be familiar with PNAC, in which I will provide a link in case you aren’t.
“ The catalysts for this change are walking among us. They’re you, me, and Michael Tellinger. They’re even David Icke and Steven Greer — as much as you might loathe them. Because people like that challenge our assumptions.”
This quote I’m including of yours is what I would like to address the most.
Ahem… so you would agree that Donald Trump would be a catalyst for positive change? Because he challenges our assumptions?
One thing I want to point out about Trump is that you HAVE to give him credit for calling out CNN and other outlets on their “fake news”. A president who acknowledges the flaws and prejudices of the propaganda we are subjected towards, IS doing exactly what you are suggesting we do. Pointing out lies and deception to those who may not see it as clearly as we do.
“ Every genuine truth seeker or truth teller is a catalyst for change. We are the seeds of a new age. But seeds take a long time to grow… that’s what’s so frustrating. I’m doing the best I can to plant seeds in people’s minds, but I won’t be around to see the forest that those seeds grow into.”
I love this, and I totally agree. This is at minimum how each of us must aspire to be. And not merely be agents of truth; but to act upon our convictions beyond typing words out on a screen.
For instance, your article about how you had to do meaningless “work” at the museum was an opportunity for you to expose the machinations and flaws of the system you operated under and was given access towards. And you did do this, but what comes next? Maybe sharing your experience with someone who is capable of affecting the changes you believe should be made, would be the next step. Contacting whoever has power to implement such changes is a material way of acting responsibly with the truths you have acquired. Taking action is equally as important as talking would be. If not more so.
My fear is that things may have to get worse, before they get better.
I don’t think this necessarily has to be the case in order for a catalyst to produce itself enough to germinate into meaningful action. I believe that as long as we stand by and honor truth, we can provide solutions from within whatever system we are under. As a refinery worker, I myself have a keen understanding of deep flaws within the system I occupy. But despite speaking the truth of it to others, nothing is being done. Just like nothing is being done about your complaints.
So, that means you and I have to do SOMETHING with what we know in order to effect meaningful change. Awareness is a start, but it’s not a substitute for action or to have the expectation that someone else will do the dirty work for us and make changes based on inaccurate or misleading information. The blind leading the blind. Which is what most people who deal with policy-making happens to be.
There’s also another way of taking action… We create a compelling meme.
I believe that if we can polish an idea or policy change into a clear and implementable form; we can then propagate this virus into the public consciousness. That’s another way of taking action. An idea that makes a lot of sense (ie. marijuana legalization) WILL gain traction when a clear argument is presented that few can find disagreement with.
Anyways… I’m getting embarrassed at how much I’ve written on this subject and in my other comments to you. I think I’ve given you plenty to consider and think about, as you have done with me.
Thanks Chris :)
