"...we are all responsible not only for ourselves but the entire society..."

This came out of the IP discussion held in chat today. As it is was not directly related to the IP I post the discussion here for others' thoughts. I have removed any conversation not directly related to Vusuki's question and colour coded respondents so that it is easier to read.

(22:12:47) Vusuki: Who else had trouble facing the idea (of Krishnamurti) that we are all responsible not only for ourselves but the entire society of which we are a part of?
(22:13:09) Vusuki: I haven't finished the book- freedom from the known but I found that deeply unsettling
(22:14:00) Gisteron: i have no trouble facing that idea, vusuki, i just find it preposterous, personally. but seeing how he asserts it on no grounds, i need no grounds to dismiss it either.
(22:14:30) Edan: I haven't read that book... we are responsible for what we do within society.. though I am not sure we are all responsible for what society is.. if that makes sense..
(22:15:11) Connor_L.: We are responsible for our contribution.
(22:15:25) Edan: Exactly...must better put
(22:15:27) Connor_L.: So, how we react, and what we do in response to society directly shapes it.
(22:17:17) Alan: I like this idea better in Jean-Paul Sartre's essay, "Existentialism is Humanism". When you choose you choose for every person. Because if you value it enough to choose it then it is a value you would want for everyone.
(22:18:15) Vusuki: Is that also the idea of the precepts of the Categorical Imperative?
(22:18:37) Vusuki: Act in such a way that your maxim could be a universal law?
(22:19:21) Vusuki: (and never treat a person as a means to an end but always as an end and means in itself)
(22:19:37) Vusuki: (and act in accordance with a law you give yourself)
(22:19:49) Alan: Similar. But for the Categorical Imperative, the reason is not my freedom as in Sartre but because everyone shares the same divinely given human reason.
(22:21:20) Gisteron: sounds like an arbitrary distinction to me... i may choose a thing knowing full well it's not a choice everybody would or should make. likewise i can refuse a choice with no rimorse knowing that generally speaking it would've been a better way to go.
(22:23:06) Gisteron: likewise, i wouldn't want the maxim to evaluate maxims by the categorical imperative to be a universal law, therefore following that imperative i would have to reject that imperative making the construct, at least superficially, self-defeating.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ySEJxwM7Jh0


Responsibility (or lack thereof) is the result of dualistic thinking. In Freedom from the Known I think JK is playing with us a little when he says we are responsible. It's actually worse than that . . . We are not responsible for the violence and hated - we ARE the violence and hatred. We are also the love and compassion. We cannot only feel intimately connected with the 'good' in the world - we are also intimately connected with the 'bad'.

It's late here but it's the start of an answer at least

I think the assumption that might occur is that it is the burden of responsibility that he means, but instead reckon its meant to be rather a measure of it only. As such it would be variable, and the most importance/relevance being for many that the relationship is even in existence. Mindfulness to this relationship can take many forms but some might work better then others, and abuse of becoming attached to 'participation' can itself be its own problem. I think his audience is mostly the self centered egoist because he was bought up in such an artificial environment of intense spiritual training that his worldview made many other people's behaviour look terribly self centered, IMO.

In my studying I found I am responsible for 100% of my own decisions. I have chosen to take on that responsibility. That takes up a lot of one's time. I can help but as one who is fully accountable I can say I am not a countable for others and their decisions. I can influence, guide warn council and encourage but in the end the choice is the individuals I think. My actions are at times ready to move either way or some times multiple due to the " others" in the mix of life. Some.may not want that choice of responsibility, some may.

I think maybe if everyone actually did take responsibility for themselves, taking responsibility for the entire society would not need to be imagined.

Too many people expect society to be responsible for them, you see it in politics right now with the promises of free this, free that, like free healthcare or free college will actually be by definition free. On the other side you've got people who are hardcore responsibility types and end up thinking they can take responsibility for others only to realize (or not) either they themselves aren't in a position to decide what's right for everyone else or that people who cannot take care of themselves truly will never be satisifed with what others provide to them.

The idea that we as individuals are responsible for the entire society can be positive or negative. Some might like that idea and go out and do good deeds to solve problems and promote harmony. Others might find it too big of a burden or seek solutions to solving society's problems in the fashion of a tyrant in hopes of establishing a utopia. I think though that whether or not we like it, we are. You can choose to ignore things, be part of the group thinking herds, follow your political figures, let other people do and take care of things, when we should all at least be participating in our immediate environment and societies while communicating with the rest of the world.

If I think how I might be responsible for the entire society, I must look at the various levels of the society I'm in.

My individual setting is me, my friends, my dogs, my girlfriend. Most of my friends and I all work together, we share houses, pitch in together for food and various supplies, etc. The biggest problems pretty much arise from the difficulty of determining when a situation is based in our friendship or business which is essentially a lack of communication. They occur mostly when dealing with the times of who needs to get what done with work, or settling who paid for this or who owes for that. I've seen such a lack of communication that people will just assume the worst with people, 'this person is greedy and wants to control the rest' or 'this person is lazy and doesn't deserve this or that'. The exact same things I see out in the higher levels of society. Thankfully I have a girlfriend in Russia that I get to go to and be away from all the drama when it's there which is what I'm doing now because I'm the one who is owed a lot of money this time and sees the greed and laziness in various people that have held me back from doing what I need to do. I'm not very close to my family as they have always been a source of petty drama that I'm just not interested in, I don't like to fight and nitpick with everyone around me about trivial things.

My town or county has debt, crime, and environmental issues. Well I usually support my local stores when buying clothes, tools and other gear even if it's a little more expensive than the internet. The grocery store I go to is a co-op where the customers are the owners and there is governmental structure to it anyone can be a part of, most of the produce is local and there are many other products that are locally sourced and if not are still pretty close. All of the sales tax and spending my money in my community helps with the debt issue I'd like to think. As for crime, well the crime is mostly related to drug use such as meth and there is a large population of vagrants that feed of the community in a parasitical way. These are not homeless people who are down on their luck they are people who choose that lifestyle and do drugs, steal and trash the beaches, parks and streets. There isn't much I can do about that and neither can local law enforcement due to lack of resources so I operate my day to day life in a strategic and defense manner while being fully prepared to go on the offensive if need be. Then for environmental issues when I work I keep my jobsite clean and take with me what I bring in and dispose of garbage responsibly. I am conscious of what I choose to use for certain jobs as it relates to the environment in regards to toxicity and general pollution. A big issue for us is water use right now and we have a lot of unregulated marijuana cultivation here which is basically the industry that keeps the community thriving, but the county has finally implemented policies to begin regulation via permiting processes, fixing properties, etc. Other industries are part of the problem as well, and while I try to do my part I like to stay aware of what's going on in my locale politically so if I feel the desire or need I can participate in the process.

On a state level, well I live in rural northern California and California is almost like it's own country. Sacramento and the south is pretty much corrupt, drowning itself in debt, destroying it's own environment and leeching what it needs from the north. A Hollywood, yuppy liberal wasteland - I am totally apathetic about statewide issues to the point of considering moving. I guess I could couple my involvement with the national society in the same way. I think the idea of America was great, a consitutional republic by which states regulated themselves and based on their environment, the cultures and interests of the people who came and live there would be able to look after their own interests. But this idea or dream is no longer real as the federal government whose sole purpose was to just have a military and direct the communication between states has basically usurped state's rights and acts on it's own accord serving it's own private, corporate, banking interests. We've had a mutated form of fascism for awhile and those in the federal government decided to fulfill nefarious hidden agendas under the guise of policing the world. Now after generations of indocrincation and watering down of our culture and traditions through cultural marxism we're transitioning into a democractic socialist (corporate socialism in reality as the 1% has always wanted someone like Bernie) system where the system will decide who gets what healthcare, education, jobs and take even more from the individual and states as an endgame for the establishment to transition into a more open global governmental system with no sovereign nations justifying itself using the problems of poverty, terrorism, and various crisis it created. I don't think this is being pessimistic either, it's easy to see and learn about when you read the writings and see the actions of the big political businessmen. Europe is further ahead in this game and is currently undergoing a huge transition as we all know, Africa and the Middle East serve as global 'sub-regions' for resources and Asia will manufature and produce everything in this big business model.

While in some ways I can understand why it's all being done semi-secretly (it's not because you can read Agenda 21 and all the trade deals, and again read it from the horse's mouth) and in a way that creates order of it's own chaos. It's all pretty brilliant but I think it has happened because nobody wanted to take responsibility for the entire society or even themselves. Just like those who cracked the first nut or harnessed fire, they saw the opportunity to do this to further their own survival to mainain their status and that of their offspring. It's not me who is making this an us verse them thing either, they are the ones who decided to go against everyone else and take advantage of situations for their own benefit. But the problem is rooted in the invidual's psychology that is based on fear of it's own freedom and what people think that results in people who take control of that fear that exists on a collective level.

I think a lot of people are waking up and becoming aware of the need to take responsibility for themselves, and that of the entire society. They'll have to because jobs aren't being created, healthcare and education will always be expensive, and the cost of living will rise while standards fall. I've even read some occult stuff where the idea behind all of this chaos was to awaken a conscious humanity and you see all of this stuff in the entertainment. So while I'm lethargic on a state and national level, I think on a global or spiritual level there is a great opportunity for everyone to be involved somehow and we may be responsible stewards of the earth and each other as we evolve and futher our eventual travels into and perhaps colonization of other parts of the universe. It's a great time to take action and do what you can yourself, doing it for those who are longer with us, those who can't, those who won't and those who will be here after we're gone.

While the title of this post is absolutely true, we must acknowledge that a great many things have come before our time. I cannot accept responsibility for slavery, but I can accept responsibility to know about it and stamp it out. So just take things in context and take responsibility for the things you can and learn from the things of the past. I would highly recommend a great many PBS documentaries that teach a lot about everything that has happened since video was invented.

https://youtu.be/KKD9anjgcCI?t=5m28s

Skip to 5:28 for the segment containing what I would really like to draw your attention to.

This has been the predominant topic of conversation between Josh and me this morning ...

"I -Thou" relationships become "I - it" when one 'thinks one understands'. Just be 'understanding'. We never 'understand' entirely ... not enough to assign blame. Thus, the incomprehension (what we cannot 'understand', that which comes from an artificial sense of "meaning") is that from which we assign Guilt, Shame and the very basis of Violence.

Ponder it ....

All of the past, present and future situations that we, as a race, create for ourselves...have these not all arisen from the human condition to which we are all subjected?

External causes and conditions play a pivotal role in shaping us and our decisions - we might think that we are doing 'good' things, but if exposed to exactly the same causes and conditions as someone doing 'bad' things is there not a chance that we would be doing the same as them?

Resistant as we generally are to the notion, much of the position that we each find ourselves in could be considered to be a result of luck - luck of the draw - our upbringing, the situations we have been exposed to, the external things that have affected us. Even those good choices that we make that we believe are a sign of our consciously writing our own destinies - how can we know with any degree of certainty that we would have made those same choices had the preceeding events of our life been different?

We all have within us the potential to do good and bad things, selfless and selfish things, thoughtful and thoughtless things...that is an inescapable part of being human.

Our actions contribute to the external conditions that influence others - take the Temple, for example - the attitude of the individuals here makes up the collective positive atmosphere that we all so enjoy. Over time here, people learn to engage respectfully and courteously and to enjoy their discourse rather than to experience it in an aggressively combative and/or defensive frame of mind, because that is what they see other individuals doing and that is consequently the overall atmosphere or aura of the Temple. Similarly, when one person becomes aggressive in a particular discussion, how many times have we seen others react to this with similar aggression, and the behaviour and tone of the whole conversation rapidly descends into negativity? The behaviour of individuals affects the behaviour of the collective...(which isn't to say that individuals aren't responsible for their own actions, but that sometimes our conditioning is very hard to transcend and, as fallible human beings, we accept that we wont all succeed all of the time).

The effect (that we are having on others) doesn't always have to be intentional or conscious either - we never know how our actions are being observed and interpreted, and contributing to someone else's interpretation of the world.

So there is responsibility in recognizing that we are always an external condition in the life of others - what we do affects them, whether we like it or not. And what they do affects others, and what those others do affect yet more others...

The idea that 'one person can change the world' can sometimes seem a ludicrous one - it is often understood to mean that one person will single-handedly change the world, and for the most part this probably is unrealistic. Why? Because we are not islands...we exist as part of a collective humanity. If we reword it as 'collectively, each person can change the world' - might there be some truth in this? :dry:

If we all feel responsible for 3 people than we have at least one person who feels responsible for us , thus making it impossible to hurt eachother without hurting oneself

V-Tog wrote: All of the past, present and future situations that we, as a race, create for ourselves...have these not all arisen from the human condition to which we are all subjected?

Resistant as we generally are to the notion, much of the position that we each find ourselves in could be considered to be a result of luck - luck of the draw - our upbringing, the situations we have been exposed to, the external things that have affected us. Our actions contribute to the external conditions that influence others - take the Temple, for example - the attitude of the individuals here makes up the collective positive atmosphere that we all so enjoy.

So there is responsibility in recognizing that we are always an external condition in the life of others - what we do affects them, whether we like it or not. And what they do affects others, and what those others do affect yet more others...

The idea that 'one person can change the world' can sometimes seem a ludicrous one - it is often understood to mean that one person will single-handedly change the world, and for the most part this probably is unrealistic. Why? Because we are not islands...we exist as part of a collective humanity.

Mmm.. what if one person is the universal word for all persons working together as one? What if our actions not only contribute to the external conditions of other people, but also to ourselves? Would I be a weird if I call this external contribution to others a influence and to myself luck? I find this 'luck' to be found in all contribution? Luck is nothing more than a uncontrollable favorable situation. So should we all consider ourselves lucky? I think we could.. But most people only favor the situations that they do not face every day as luck. Why is that? Is it because we stopped realising the every day little things because we began to see them as normal?

~ Aqua

I think this is a great discussion.

During the various histories throughout the world, there are parts where people have been completely independent. As people came together individual responsibilities remained, but also effected those around them be it for the protection of their villages, supporting one another following a bad harvest season with a collective effort to make up for such through hunting and gathering, and even "community policing", as even though "laws" may not have been written, many individual groups or even groups within a geographical region established an understanding of what was acceptable to that which required action. Even today, though technically under the laws of the United States and Canada, the Amish and Mennonite communities have their own such expectations which can lead to "shunning".

The evolution of the question of individual responsibility versus that of the 'group', has become more of an issue as the expanse of civilizations in modern society have, in effect (with exceptions of isolated tribes, such as those in S. America), established national boundaries which literally 'demand' not only individual responsibility for an established social norm, but also a level of communal commitment on the greater scale as well. Such can be in the form of militaries, similar, albeit on a grander scale, to the villages in early human civilization for protection, to the need for social commitments for the good of a society as a whole. Such is inevitable as with the growth of the population and the limited 'space' with which such a population can reside.

So, even within our own microcosm of existence, our degree and level of responsibility are not always something we can control without conscience or even retribution from the societies in which we live. The quagmire comes with a multitude of situations and applied ethics within that paradigm. We have some that wish to take freedom or prosperity from others either from greed, selfishness in lack of participation and responsibility within society, or through control--not based upon any philosophical question, but based upon personal beliefs or religion. This can occur within small groups towards the grandest magnification of a global scale. Can we control the global community? If not, how can we be responsible for such?

In the end, at the most basic of any foundation, an individual is ultimately responsible for themselves. The effect they have upon others can be positive or negative, which cascades through one's surroundings to either smooth into a lack of effect or be reinforced by our surroundings to a greater harm, or greater good. So whilst we are ultimately responsible for ourselves, in the modern society within which we live, a part of ourselves not only effects us as individuals, but others as well. The reflection of such responsibility can be a contradiction. One, as an individual can be doing a "great good" resulting from their personal dealing with their own responsibilities, only to experience a greater hardship as others surrounding such an individual can be negligent in dealing with their own, or just the opposite.

It is my belief, based upon my personal experiences, studies, and observations, that we are in fact ultimately responsible for ourselves. However, as our existence is also dependent upon others (if one is a mechanic, such an individual is definitely dependent upon the farmer to live, as is the farmer dependent upon the mechanic to fix their farming equipment), that we are also responsible for society as well. The question of the "entire society" is consequential--it is the product of the collective effects resonating from the smallest sub-groups right down to the individual. Even so, considering the magnitude of modern societies and the question of modern civilization, from the smallest to the grandest scales, society is a reflection of the level of responsibility and commitment with which we perceive and act towards towards those around us as well.

This has already become long enough...I save any personal examples of my life's experiences in helping and being helped. However, I will say that I am here today because someone took responsibility for me when actions beyond my control required such assistance, and the question as to if it was their job or not is without relevance, because the employer of that person was the product of a collective effort of people believing that we are also responsible for others in our society.

With respect,

Lightstrider, You wrote the following:

It's not me who is making this an us verse them thing either, they are the ones who decided to go against everyone else and take advantage of situations for their own benefit.

That phrase seems paradoxical, a little like saying "I'M not the one saying this is black and white. It's THEM who are doing bad black things!" By saying I in the first part of the sentence and they in the next, I think you may have unintentionally created an us vs them conflict.

So if we wanted to briefly avoid the black and white dualism I think we might be better off including ourselves with the majority of other people. And the majority of people take advantage of situation for their own benefit. And the majority of people are unaware of how limited their choices are because of the situations and upbringings and environnements. How are we any different? We too try to best take care of ourselves and what's important to us given whichever environnement we're in. And while we might not go against everyone else we probably go against a good number of people because we think we know, we think we're right and we think we're got a better grasp of reality (than them). I think it's pretty common that point of view. After all, humankind is not born rational. It is something we develop over time.

Personally, I think we are not responsable. Not for ourselves, not for other people, not for our environments. It's harder for me to say but I can replace the word we with the word I. I am not responable for myself, for others and the environment to which I live in. I will never have such a knowledge about all of that to respond in the best way, BUT, if we were to play a word game we could split the word reponsible to response and able- or able to respond- BUT, by becoming able to respond (by being aware of what's going on inside and outside) it is then that I can be responable. Maybe not all the time because I'm not aware and I haven't alot of experience, but perhaps if I'm only responsable a little of the time I'm alive I think I'll make the world a bit better (by recognising my deep connection to everything in it, both good and bad.)

I hope I make sense,

(22:12:47) Vusuki: Who else had trouble facing the idea (of Krishnamurti) that we are all responsible not only for ourselves but the entire society of which we are a part of?
(22:13:09) Vusuki: I haven't finished the book- freedom from the known but I found that deeply unsettling

It sounds to me like there's some kind of ubiquitous metaphysical power connecting everything to everything else... But I could be wrong of course

Ren,

That was brilliant. Lol.

But understanding that everything is connected doesn't mean one realises how deeply that runs true. In addition, this idea of everything being connected can sometimes run a little in contrast with how generally we dislike to take responability for our and other's suffering.

Nice photo MartaLina

Vusuki wrote: That phrase seems paradoxical, a little like saying "I'M not the one saying this is black and white. It's THEM who are doing bad black things!" By saying I in the first part of the sentence and they in the next, I think you may have unintentionally created an us vs them conflict.

.....

I hope I make sense,

Yes in a way you're right but at the same time I'm talking about the people who write about their desires to control the masses, poison us, use us as cannon fodder, decide one group of people or an entire deveoping country is a threat to national security, how nobody should be born without a job serving their state. The big business/political interests, technocrats and modern day Edward Bernays types. Books that talk about annihilation of self preservation through scientific techniques from inoculations to modifying the food and water.


From Bernay's Propaganda 1928

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." p9

"There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes. Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits are modified by authorities. In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power. A man buying a suit of clothes imagines that he is choosing, according to his taste and his personality, the kind of garment which he prefers. In reality, he may be obeying the orders of an anonymous gentleman tailor in London. This personage is the silent partner in a modest tailoring establishment, which is patronized by gentlemen of fashion and princes of the blood." p35

"In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

"Men are rarely aware of the real reasons which motivate their actions. A man may believe that he buys a motor car because, after careful study of the technical features of all makes on the market, he has concluded that this is the best. He is almost certainly fooling himself. He bought it, perhaps, because a friend whose financial acumen he respects bought one last week; or because his neighbors believed he was not able to afford a car of that class; or because its colors are those of his college fraternity." p51

Diet, injections and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so..

Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society 1953

Or Zbigniew Brzezinski's Between Two Ages, written in 1970 by the way, this guy was high up in the NSA and advisor to Obama and others.

"At some point, however, even the efficiency oriented group will have to address itself to the more basic questions concerning the nature of man and the purpose of social existence. Until it does so, there is always the likelihood that the ruling elite can at least temporarily succeed in compartmentalizing the scientific community, in extracting its talents, and in corrupting it with a system of rewards—all the while reserving to itself the definition of the larger objectives." -p.81

"The traditionally democratic American society could, because of its fascination with technical efficiency, become an extremely controlled society, and its humane and individualistic qualities would thereby be lost. (Such a society is the subject of Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Player Piano.)" -p253

"Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, “I foresee a time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain." -p15

"In addition, it may be possible—and tempting—to exploit for strategic-political purposes the fruits of research on the brain and on human behavior. Gordon J. F. MacDonald, a geophysicist specializing in problems of warfare, has written that accurately timed, artificially excited electronic strokes “could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth. . . . In this way, one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period... No matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behavior for national advantages to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades." -p57

"Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits." -p252-253

"Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society." -p253

Charlies Galton Darwin's The Next Million Years 1953

"Another type of discovery may be connected with hormones, those internal chemical secretions which so largely regulate the operations of the human body. The artificial use of hormones has already been shown to have profound effects on the behaviour of animals, and it seems quite possible that hormones, or perhaps drugs, might have similar effects on man. For example, there might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive. Or there might be another drug that produced a permanent state of contentment in the recipient—after all alcohol does something like this already, though it has other disadvantages and is only temporary in its effects. A dictator would certainly welcome the compulsory administration of the "contentment drug" to his subjects." p183

"Widespread wealth can never be common in an overcrowded world, and so in most countries of the future the government will inevitably be autocratic or oligarchic; some will give good government and some bad, and the goodness or badness will depend much more on the personal merits of the rulers than it does in a more democratic country." p194

"To think of it as possible at other times is a misunderstanding of the function of government in any practical sense of the term. If the only things that a government was required to do were what everybody, or nearly everybody, wanted, there would be no need for the government to exist at all, because the things would be done anyhow; this would be the impracticable ideal of the anarchist. But if there are to be starving margins of population in most parts of the world, mere benevolence cannot suffice. There would inevitably be ill feeling and jealousy between the provinces, with each believing that it was not getting its fair share of the good things, and in fact, it would be like the state of affairs with which we are all too familiar. If then there is ever to be a world government, it will have to function as government do now, in the sense that it will have to coerce a minority - and indeed it may often be a majority - into doing things they do not want to." p191

White House Science Czar John Holdren's co-authored book Ecosciences in 1978

"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits." - p943

My point about all of this, and there is much more to consider espcially if you've got $20,000 to buy a Tavistock textbook, is that regardless of what we think about whether or not we are all responsible for the entire society, there are many powerful people who have taken that responsibility and their actions and decision making are at the core of many of the problems we see today and in history but don't realize why and weren't/aren't told why.

I think to discuss our individual roles in the responsibility of the entire society must also consider those who make it their life's work to create history and make the big decisions for everyone because they took it upon themselves to do it. I'm not debating whether or not they are wrong or right, I only learned about this stuff because I thought it was absolutely crazy and impossible, that it was just all conspiracy but there is really something to all of it. Because the majority of people take responsibility for themselves in manners that are obvious and in ways provided to them by the controlled entire society, it's like Plato's cave or a child born into a room that just is not even aware of what else is really out there. Like we're all born on an island and have no knowledge or concept of mountains, rivers, or other basic geological landscapes. Or the elephant that is trained to walk around in a circle so well that it never ever even thinks to deviate from that original path as it grows up.

Vusuki what you said does make sense and I agree with you from your perspective. I really can't say I know what's best even for myself other than what I think based on from what I've learned, experienced and received from other people and from education and media that is created by people just like me who aren't born with all the answers they are just trying. I was born into an ever changing geological and political environment that has a history of over a million years for all I know. But there are families, bloodlines that have preserved their knowledge through experiencing the rise and fall of empires, who have experienced major environmental calamities, have been part of or witnessed the evolution of so much technology and spiritual/philosophical ideas, and I can't really judge these big decisions makers from my relatively immature position.

I do know that most people just want to live and enjoy their lives, myself included but I can see the trends and feel for where things could go and you see with all the things going on around the world and at home, I sense trouble ahead and so I try to understand the who, what, where, why, how. Because I am a young adult who is maturing and seeks to become more responsible for myself, my friends and family, I must consider how that all factors into the grand scheme of the entire society because I am part of it. I'm not trying to stay within the confines of the black and white dualistic world where it's just me, my friends and family, or us and my country versus them, or my religion or ideology versus them. I'm trying to understand as much as I can so that I can plan and act accordingly to what opportunities and possibilities may present themselves positive or negative. So I see these very influential, promiment, wealthy, noble people as examples to learn from and take into consideration their insights.

I could just say that from all I've read and seen that they have it under control, they are smarter and have more resources or experience in playing that authoritative decision making role and maybe they know what's best. I can't do that though because there is a lot of greed, deception, sinisterness that as a Jedi and considering the doctrine it all demands a closer examination and perhaps even some justice. Some of these people talk about other humans like they're their chattel, that the masses aren't smart enough or responsible enough (after dumbing them down and keeping them ignorant by design) to play a role in the responsibility for the entire society. On one level sure I can agree that not everyone needs to and we would never come to any solutions if we waited around for everyone to decide. We'll never have a utopia but as we've seen in history with Hitler or Stalin the world can fall into a dystopia fairly quickly in the attempts of elite groups trying to create a utopia themselves. While most people think everything is under control, we have terrorists and economic hardships but nothing so tragic like history could happen again - I think they're all in for a surprise when they found out just how controlled things have really become and even though millions of people aren't being hauled off and disappeared, we're being incrementally terminated by scientific, medical means. Some have talked about how they desire to wipe out 80% of the popluation and use the overpopulation myth as justification for implementation of policies that will bring their envisioned utopia to life.

Vusuki wrote: I am not responable for myself, for others and the environment to which I live in. I will never have such a knowledge about all of that to respond in the best way, BUT, if we were to play a word game we could split the word reponsible to response and able- or able to respond- BUT, by becoming able to respond (by being aware of what's going on inside and outside) it is then that I can be responable.

And that's the key. I may seem overly passionate about all of this but it's just because I myself have been in the situation of just not caring about myself, what I eat, what I do, didn't care about the environment, politics, spirituality, the whole mystery of the universe. I know so many people who still live like that, who are just after money, material stuff and status. We do this because it's how we've been trained, and it's how our trainers are, the apples don't fall far from the tree. Some only respond to what's inside, which is what was put inside by TV and authority, some only respond to what's outside and act without that inner wisdom or consciousness and they become the useful idiots or pawns of others. I don't expect perfection and I'm not up in arms about all of this trying to wake everyone up or save the world, I just really like to talk about it because it's the elephant in the room and not many see it and it really has to do with this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiP-BJySxE8