Post-imperialism-A-Template-for-a-New-Social-Order

[Neil]

I'll take a crack at these questions from my understanding.

What do you think that will happend with disease?

I think that health will become much more intertwined with spirituality. Once basic nutritional guidelines are met, a lot of "diseases of civilization" disappear and the body becomes resistant to most bacterial infections. That still leaves "diseases of the soul" which will have physical manifestations but nonphysical causes. I believe that doctors will function more as life coaches/mentors who incorporate methods such as healing touch, acupuncture, and homeopathy. They will still have professional knowledge to treat injuries and research cures for the oddball mutant pathogen that sweeps the world, but I think the doctors of the new world are less specialized and more generalists who understand the interconnectedness of all the body's systems within the broader overall living system. Much of SOTT's research into diet and health revolves around regenerating the DNA. Once the DNA is fixed, a lot of the chronic and recurring health problems disappear; there is no need for a massive medical complex.

About working hours? Is there the usual working time (even is shorter version) from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. or do you think that this could be flexible? I'm asking because some people are morning person, some are night birds;).

I would assume that most places would have morning and afternoon shifts to maintain a smooth and continuous operation. Some places would have evening shifts depending on the nature of the business(restaurants, for example.) I think very few places would have a night shift because it has been shown to be disruptive to the body. That would be limited to police work, paramedics, and other emergency type services.

From which material houses will be build?

I think there will be a push back toward natural living, because it complements the human organism and perhaps imparts it with some kind of earth energies. Wood and stone primarily, earth where possible, would be my guess.

As for compulsory schooling, I do believe it is necessary to provide instruction in some kind of semi-formal environment so that everyone has access to the same basic life skills and cultural traditions/history. I think that this "common ground" would provide everybody with a shared experience which builds the cohesion of your society. This is not so different from how the PTB use it to push their version of reality on everyone and corral them into conformity, and there is no reason why we can't turn the principle to our own ends to satisfy a different aim. I have read some of Gatto's books and agree that he makes some very salient points. Also, the compulsory period for formal instruction being narrowed down to 4 years instead of 12+, makes it far less intrusive and life wasting. I had personally envisioned something like Little House on the Prairie meets the colleges or "houses" that are described in chapter two of the first book of G Vale Owen's Life Beyond the Veil.

Maybe I have to much idealize picture of this but I cannot find any reason for some one to own a gun?

My understanding is that this template isn't for a utopian world, it is, if you are familiar with Mouravieff, a template for the 1000 year time of transition leading to the Last Judgement (Earth's ascension into 4D proper). During this time, especially the early part, there are still problems as the new world is being built and the humans existing then are being challenged to build a crystallization within them that is capable of supporting 4D vibrations. During that time, there are still likely to be psychos, as well as people who just "lose it" due to post transformational confusion and trauma, as well as "intrusions" instigated by 4D STS. It would be prudent, in my opinion, while things are in such a chaotic state, to have a militia or citizens posse, both as a check on tyranny or as an insurance policy in case one finds themselves in a battle zone. If nothing else, they make hunting much easier.

I presume that the hardest work in NSO could be working with psychopats, criminals and people don't like to work. Wetiko is fast spread disease, and it could easily transfer from enclavs, don't you think? How can be helped to those who works in that enclavs?

Living in an area where the death penalty is practiced, I can see both sides of the debate. The main reason against the death penalty, as far as I can understand, comes from an esoteric perspective. It is abridging freewill by making a judgment and denying something the right to exist. In a society where Ponerology is a core subject, psychopathy should have a much harder time gaining a foothold. A lot of psychopaths could be whipped into shape under the threat of hard labor and an austere life, but I do fear that rare mastermind who might be able to charm his way out of the enclave and foment a rebellion and start taking over settlements. If psychopathy is largely acknowledged and dealt with, 4D STS may come up with an upgraded model with souped up engines. I certainly think it is a puzzle, but there are others who know more about this than me.

Sexuality issue, mucho mucho problemos with this one. From which age you think that children should learn about this?

I would say before the onset of puberty, but not too much more. 11-12ish probably.

As for child rearing, I think it is helpful to the stability of one's development if they are exposed to role models/caregivers of both sexes. This shouldn't be much of an issue in a communal living arrangement, despite the proclivities of the actual patent/guardians, which I don't think are anyone's business as long as its not hurting anyone else. In a more nuclear family situation, I am not personally convinced that LGB parents make worse parents, but there is a possibility that it could increase the odds of the child developing personality imbalances if it is super sensitive to a traditional family makeup.

 

[Buddy]

If psychopathy is largely acknowledged and dealt with, 4D STS may come up with an upgraded model with souped up engines. I certainly think it is a puzzle, but there are others who know more about this than me.

I don't think I know more, but I do recall something from 2010 that might be useful input here.

Actually, ya'll might want to watch "Fast Runner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanarjuat

It's a great movie about life in the arctic AND how a society can be ponerized by just a few pathological individuals and what to do about them.

obyvatel picked up on that and 3 months later added it to the Creating a New World thread and asked the question:

For small tribes struggling for physical survival in a hostile environment, cooperation is an existential necessity. But is that enough to keep pathology away?

And on the next page of that same thread, I picked up obyvatel's comments and attempted a commentary suggesting what in ourselves could be looked for as a possible hook that pathological types could use to gain that initial foothold necessary in order to "foment a rebellion and start taking over settlements."

According to the article: "One of the lessons of the legend of Atanarjuat is the evil that can occur when personal ambition (Sauri's and Oki's, in the film) is put before the needs of the community."

I hope this is not too strong a statement, but I have pretty much always maintained that 'psychopaths', as such, are not deserving of exclusive focus of attention. What could or would they do on their own if they couldn't use our minds, our mouths, our hands and our feet? As things are now, we as individuals are not separate in that picture and I think one of the first orders of business in that kind of a Work context is to find and fix our own vulnerabilities if such a thing is possible. That's what this post hopes to show.

Of course, with regard to this point I'm probably 'preaching to the choir' here, but I thought this might be a useful way to reintroduce that quote from Laura in this context. :)

 

[Anamarija]

Neil, thank you for answering on my questions. Also, Mouravieff sounds like a good next step to read.

I hope that this topic will not be forgoten and that on this template will be added more good things.

 

[kalibex]

Living in an area where the death penalty is practiced, I can see both sides of the debate. The main reason against the death penalty, as far as I can understand, comes from an esoteric perspective. It is abridging freewill by making a judgment and denying something the right to exist.

Well, the right to exist further in that form. One could be seen to be, in effect, removing them temporarily from this plane. But what of the 'You're not acting against someone else, but in your own favor' factor? Self-defense, if an aggressor won't cease their attack? Apparently the background 'intent' would then be the crucial factor there...

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Neil]Living in an area where the death penalty is practiced, I can see both sides of the debate. The main reason against the death penalty, as far as I can understand, comes from an esoteric perspective. It is abridging freewill by making a judgment and denying something the right to exist.[/quote]

Another esoteric perspective is the factor that prison can offer the opportunity to reflect on oneself. People can chance for the better. If you take that away with the death penalty, you possibly take away their potential lessons.

That said, psychopaths on the other hand are not able to learn anything. And psychopaths fill up the prisons with the most horrendous crimes.

 

[Meager1]

[size=12pt][size=10pt]

Imagine a group of people arriving at a location after some sort of catastrophe. They set up camp on a ruined city and proceed to apportion out lots of land to everyone equally. So, everyone starts out pretty much equally. And, because of the agricultural nature of the society, things can depend on the land and weather and other variables. If one person has better land, he has more surplus and can live through a period of drought. But the other guy has bad land and a bigger family to feed, so he has to borrow from his neighbor who has surplus. Then, things being as they are, he can never catch up with this debt and he borrows more, and more. Eventually, his land, his wife and children, and then he, himself, go under the ownership of the neighbor who then may repeat the process again and again until he owns a lot of land and plenty of slaves to work it just for his benefit.

That is a simplistic version of how it happens. It happened in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in Greece, in Rome.
The Romans didn't really have a method to deal with it and we see there the prototype of our own world, though they had declared slaves, nowadays we just have people who "owe their soul to the company store." It's the same thing.

I don't post often anymore, usually because someone has already posted what I was I thinking, or I don't
have anything more worth adding and so I don't.
There is only a couple of things I wanted to add to the thread so far, and that is that I think that whole mindset mentioned above would need to go.

If there is even the slightest possibility to start over and do it better next time around, all of that kind of thinking would have to be changed.
In the above scenario it says the land was divided up, and that would be the first mistake.
No one "owns" the land and everyone should share it equally.
If someone loves to farm they should have good land to do that, but what they produce is not only theirs, especially not any excess.
Since the land is owned in common so is what it produces.

If you grow food because it's what you love to do, and doing what you love to do is a joy, there is also joy in growing it to share with others.
Some people might be very good at growing tobacco, or hemp fields.
But it is the labor that is the value...so if a neighbor has a large family and needs more then he has, it is an easy thing to give it to him, and in turn
he could give back, in labor.
He could chop you some wood, or maybe one of his older children could babysit for you on occasion, but labor is exchanged and no one owes after that.
It would be a pleasure for some people to grow food and bring it to a free public market where other people have brought what they have produced and
goods are freely exchanged.
We exchange our labor already for a dimes worth of paper, made to appear as if it's worth more then that!
We work all week to receive cheap paper to exchange for goods, but it is only our labor that has the real value.

Maybe some people would like to live on a lake because they love fishing..others may want to live near the edge of the forest for hunting.
But if everyone freely shared what their labor produced, there would be no owing and no debt, and there would be no shortages.
Everyone has something they love to do, and if they just freely shared that because they love to, without having to worry about bills or mortgages etc,
the world could be a pretty decent place to live.
As it is now, it's all about incorporation. Every citizen of the U.S is just a legal corporation, unbeknownst to them of course.
The U.S itself, operating out of the state of New Columbia, is nothing more then a foreign for profit corporation masquerading as a government, with the consent of the American people of course, only because they don't know this.
And it would seem that dept slaves are usually made through taxation, deception and trickery, or goods being withheld without some convoluted contract to secure more then what is actually or originally owed.
And since people need things to survive, this kind of system may work very well for the greedy, but not so much for the needy, or for those not willing to "incorporate" themselves in order to be a member of this corrupt system of slavery.

 

[kalibex]

If you grow food because it's what you love to do, and doing what you love to do is a joy, there is also joy in growing it to share with others.

I like that concept.

 

[Chad]

Thanks for the summary Psalehesost.

To further the point, Gabor Mate in the lecture below goes into detail about why he thinks children today suffer from such adverse behaviour; they have little choice but to emulate their peers due to being torn away from family at a young age; their parents being busy, overly stressed, worn out and have less time to bond, so they drift into peer groups and basically feedback whatever behaviour is being promoted within their group at the time. In my own experience and observations this was very much the case, i think.

There are others where he's talking about the same issue, but this is the one I’ve seen:

Gabor Mate Lecture - "Hold On To Your Kids"

"This presentation is hosted in partnership with: The Thunder Bay District Health Unit, Lakehead Public Schools, Special Education Advisory Committee and North of Superior Counselling Programs. The Presentation Title is "Hold On To Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers" and is presented by best selling author Dr. Gabor Mate."

https://youtu.be/p_akH6Cin6E

There's a practical side to schooling which has been mentioned: some people are more natural at teaching, are specialised in the subject the child wishes to progress at, and this could happen earlier in life than it currently does, if it's found to beneficial. I wanted to be a zoologist when i was a 10 years old and, actually, i don't think would have regretted focusing on it so soon. And for example, my reading abilities which weren't great would have probably improved due to my active interest in something rather than reading for readings sake.

There are other potential benefits, i think, such as working with others of similar ages can also relate to temperaments and capabilities. Though there also appears to be a real benefit too with 'older children' interacting with younger children, perhaps assisting in their learning; in the way Gatto talks about in the old school houses, where children were of mixed ages, and the older kids were expected to help explain things to those younger and, by attempting to convey a topic, they learned more themselves - it reminds me of the phrase 'explain it like i'm 5/8 years old'. Because just by trying to explain something to someone completely new to a topic, you realise how much you know by how simply you can frame it. There's also a real issue of children growing up not feeling comfortable interacting with different age groups, since we've been confined to only those within 12 months of our own age.

To mention, Gatto states that for the most part, children were at school mainly when they weren't needed to help the house or the farm. So during certain periods of the year rather than full time.

This schooling can also free parents to do other things for the community which may be more beneficial. There's also the issue of facilities and resources which can benefit from being in localised buildings. Though i would imagine this would be most ideal in the local community where possible.

I would also add that there does appear to be some benefit to children being away from the their parents, at times. Like when i was a kid and enjoyed going out on adventures with my friends and we had to 'fend for ourselves' - from about age 8 - on short trips to the local swimming pool; you learn to cooperate without guardians and i think you develop your own style to coping with issues. This happens now in the playground of course but when you know a guardian is nearby it has some effect. It also helps when the environment is different and maybe less controlled. The time away and activity would be appropriate for the age of course, and would change as they grow older.

I wonder if there isn't some benefit to being out of sight of the understood expectations of your care givers too - like when the child knows their parent has a preconceived idea of them or the activity and so is hesitant. Or when the parent says "they don't like that", when the child is actually growing and so there choices are changing too.

In the same way that children are less likely to do something they know they normally wouldn't with a parent there, can this also limit them in other ways? What i have in mind would be: classes, days out and, as they grow, trips away - this may the part where public schooling comes in, except it would just be an extension of the community really.

Baring in mind people won't be saints and therefore will still have programs of their own, which is why it may be beneficial and easier for both the child and the parent for some activities. A bit like when a child comes home and tells their mother they did something and the parent is happily surprised. Obviously in a new world the parent would be eager to encourage independence and variety, to teach them where possible and work against having any prejudged ideas of their child.

I'm not suggesting the comments above say this isn't a good idea, but it got me thinking.

If you grow food because it's what you love to do, and doing what you love to do is a joy, there is also joy in growing it to share with others.

I like that concept.

This reminds me of time/skill-banking which some communities in England, and elsewhere in the world, are practising. It's probably far from perfect but it does seem to work and people in general are satisfied with the concept.

Basically you can do a straight exchange, but i think it makes sense to also factor in the skill required. So an electrician or programmer may spend a few minutes fixing things but the time taken to learn gives greater value to their contribution. I'm no expert so it's just so say that it is happening already.

This bit from wiki is interesting - but is really how communities did and probably ought to act naturally anyway:

wiki: Origins and philosophy

Time banking is a community development tool and works by facilitating the exchange of skills and experience within a community. It aims to build the 'core economy' of family and community by valuing and rewarding the work done in it. The world's first time bank was started in Japan by Teruko Mizushima in 1973 with the idea that participants could earn time credits which they could spend any time during their lives. She based her bank on the simple concept that each hour of time given as services to others could earn reciprocal hours of services for the giver at some stage in the future, particularly in old age when they might need it most. In the 1940s, Mizushima had already foreseen the emerging problems of an ageing society such as seen today. In the 1990s the movement took off in the USA, with Dr Edgar Cahn pioneering it there, and in the United Kingdom, with Martin Simon from Timebanking UK.

 

[Tyomodachi]

Well, there are certain contradictions in this particular pattern. Here, great attention is paid to primary socialization and the family, but before that it is said that when the population becomes more than 3000, people must move, that is, abandon their family and the whole friendly team, which education in this society falls on.
The idea of inheritance tax deserves special praise, this is amazing. It will satisfy both the right and the left, the left, because the property will not be in the hands of people who are unworthy or, at least, have not made an effort to earn it, and the right will be satisfied otherwise.

 

[Pierre]

Well, there are certain contradictions in this particular pattern. Here, great attention is paid to primary socialization and the family, but before that it is said that when the population becomes more than 3000, people must move, that is, abandon their family and the whole friendly team, which education in this society falls on

That's an interesting question. How to manage the 'split' of a community in a harmonious way? Bees are able to do that, so I guess that, us humans, can do it too. Here are a few ideas:

- In a community you always have people who have the will to explore and discover, they are good candidates for starting a new community.
- The new community can be a 'satellite' of the mother community, where both interact. Trade, exchanges, communication should be encouraged.
- The satellite community could be designed in order to be complementary to the mother community. For example because of its location the satellite community could have access to a resource the mother community lacks.
- You don't reach 3000 members overnight, so there is time to prepare a proper move by finding a good location, building some infrastructure, identifying the required skills and the individuals willing to embrace a new adventure.
- I don't think family would have to be split, families should stay or move together.
- 3000 is an indicative number. It is not set in stone and will depend on each individual case.
- From the get-go the new community should be large enough (a few hundreds members?) in order to be self-sustainable and ensure a decent standard of living for all its members.