Why Can't We Stop: Before The Suffering Gets Unbearable?

Addicted To Special Interest Government

When will we stop looking for solutions in the problems? Why do we think that might be a possibility? What makes us think that the solutions exist? Is it possible that some things, some systems can't be fixed? What if it goes against the laws of nature? Can you make it work? As an example lets look at the current scientific model for cosmology. Scientific ideas are as good as their ability to make predictions. Say for instance my personal hypothesis concerning the nature of gravity said that the gravitational effect on an object would cause an object to fall toward the earth and toward the south pole at the same rate. How would I prove it? I'd have to drop stuff. If I was right then stuff would fall not only down but south as well. So if I drop it from here it should land over there, right? What if it doesn't? Do you think we should use my ideas? Of course not, it's obvious. What is the success rate for the current ideas about the universe? Not sure? They're ridiculous. So why aren't they over in the bin with my gravity ideas? Why can't we just stop and do something else? Where does the desire to keep at something like this come from?

Why can't we stop the insane belief that we can petition our owners for change? We have a global political crisis. We keep asking that body for answers. Why? Why would it cross our minds that it had any? Our monetary system is completely foul. It was not designed to work in our favor. Why do we look to it for solutions to financial troubles? Time after time after time we watch everything stay the same. We just put the federal reserve in charge of itself. Posing as an appointee. A regulator. Are we that stupid? I think a lot of this is due to a savior complex. No matter how much we claim to be realistic and all grow'd up we can't escape the influence of Sunday school. We just won't let go of the stuff that's killing us. We all want to do more. Spend more. Try harder. Form another committee. That's been proven to work well huh? We say we want to make life better for everyone. Everyone says it. What's Life?

Can we know what life is if we're not involved in it? Are we involved in life at all? We say Life, but do we really mean our lives? Whats that got to do with Life? Can we have better lives using a system that is against Life? Outside the natural order? Is that ever going to work? How? The corporate, political, monetary, religious systems we have been working at are dogs. They can't be anything but dogs in the future because they were dogs to begin with. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Why? Because there's no silk in a sows ear. Why don't we stop? Is this the reason?

How can I do less to help? That's a good question. It's also a viable question that would lead to a solution. Stop listening to politicians. Stop reading political blogs. Stop watching the news. Remove every ounce of energy you personally can from the political arena. Stop buying from corporations. Stop buying anything disposable. Drink out of jars, then wash them. Stop borrowing money. Stop coveting. Stop looking for someone to fix things. Stop begging the dogs for a bone. It's disgusting. It's embarrassing. Stop being a part of a society, a country or any other antiquated idea. Stop listening to people. Find out about life, all by yourself, and see if you can be part of it. I didn't say society. Life. There are millions of people on this planet with all the solutions to all the problems that plague the planet. You can join them but you can't belong to both camps. You have to pick a side. What else can we not do?

If we knew the facts, would the madness be over? If we knew what life was would we get better? Would our disease go into submission or disappear? Mine has. It's worked for everyone I know that's tried it. What is life? What are you? See anything that resembles a crowning glory in human evolution when you gaze on the outcome of our nations, governments and societies? Boycotts are the only things that work. Why aren't there mass boycotts going on? If people just quit, it would stop. The fact of the matter is this: It won't quit until we quit. We also need to stop listening to stupid life stories. If we would stop telling stupid life stories in a decade or so people would forget them and we could move into the future. We can't move forward when we're mired in superstition. These stories are the cause of all the problems we face on this planet. The systems I mentioned were founded in that fantasy and it's peoples adherence to these fantasies that keep them standing today. Long after they have proven themselves pointless, destructive and cannibalistic.
Every diminution of the public burdens arising from taxation gives to individual enterprise increased power and furnishes to all the members of our happy confederacy new motives for patriotic affection and support. Andrew Jackson

Another important historical factor is the fact that this already very simple religion was further simplified and purified by the early philosophers of ancient China. Our first great philosopher was a founder of naturalism; and our second great philosopher was an agnostic. Hu Shih

Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous. Confucius

Thomas Paine wrote:
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.

  First: - The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King.
  Secondly: - The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.
  Thirdly: - The new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the People; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.

To say that the constitution of England is an "union" of three powers, reciprocally checking each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

First: - That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly: - That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

Some writers have explained the English constitution thus: the King, say they, is one, the people another; the Peers are a house in behalf of the King, the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind: for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. How came the King by power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist.