Many people go through this life without thinking too deeply about what it is they value, what they would be willing to die for, and what they would be willing to kill for. It takes an uncommon man to consider the question deeply, and an even rarer man to follow through with his decision when the chips are down. Undoubtedly, people fail in this process all the time, but when you see someone make one of those tough choices, putting his principles above his bank balance, or his integrity before gratification, it can inspire you, and make you wonder: if one soul can stand so firm, firmer than old concrete, what else might it be able to achieve?
In this episode, Kurt is joined by two friends and collaborators, Link McElvenny and Mr. J. to discuss their ideas on the codes, principles, values and frameworks which they use to make decisions, and guide themselves through interesting lives. We discuss liberty, the non-aggression principle, non-violence, masculine and feminine polarity, trying to help others to gain a more empowering perspective, open-mindedness, and the difference between eastern and western views of teaching and learning.
Join us in this next soul-challenging, introspective, middle-path-walking episode of The Paradise Paradox!
We really appreciate all of your contributions! Every cent and satoshi we receive lets us know that we’re doing something worthwhile, that you are entertained by our program, and that you’re starting to question what you know more and more. Please be generous. Donate to The Paradise Paradox. Or buy some stuff on Amazon using this link. Or buy some of our great T-shirts here.
There is a natural phenomenon happening where ‘very normal’ people find themselves asking obvious and straightforward questions about everyday things. What’s happening to the weather? What’s happening to my neighbourhood? What’s happening to my investments? Many people can feel that there is something not right. These occurrences are now increasing, the questions are growing, people are peeling back the layers of illusion and asking for truth.
Now we live in a very different and very connected world, where social media and alternative media channels have been fueling ‘the awakening’. The sharing of knowledge, truth and ideas is having a massive effect in the fight to increase awareness. For all of us this is an on-going process, and the spiritual shift is now well underway, though we still have a long way to go.
In this episode Anam Paiseanta joins us to explain that we, as a society, must evolve individually, and join together, to consciously out grow of the current political system. The personal principles needed to get us all moving in the right direction can be found in anarchism. These are all ‘normal’ things – the love and respect for mankind, justice, cooperation, voluntaryism, the non-aggression-principle, personality responsibility and self-ownership. Your personal evolution will path the way to a much larger and social and political revolution. Anam also tells us about the progress on his team’s “Connector” app, which will allow people to connect with like-minded individuals, and even form hidden, counter-economies among themselves.
Here is where Anam’s formula of “A-Cubed” or “the three A’s” is leading to the evolution that enables the real world revolution:
1. Awakening – Sharing knowledge, memes – reminding each other of truth
2. Activism – Prevention of government indoctrination by educating the youth, alternative schooling
3. Agorism – Projects – Counter-economics, creating the new system, what can I do to add value?
The time is now – to tune in and turn up. The Paradise Paradox presents Anam Paiseanta!
We really appreciate all of your contributions! Every cent and satoshi we receive lets us know that we’re doing something worthwhile, that you are entertained by our program, and that you’re starting to question what you know more and more. Please be generous. Donate to The Paradise Paradox. Or buy some stuff on Amazon using this link. Or buy some of our great T-shirts here.
There is a principle of law that is acknowledged and often enforced all around the world, that if someone interferes with another’s person or property, they will be punished. For example, if you break down someone’s door without a damned good reason, such as the prevention of harm to an innocent, if you are caught and proven guilty, you will be punished. Likewise, if I approach someone and threaten them into giving me money, if I am caught, I will be punished. Of course, if it is found that I was in a very desperate situation such as having to feed my family, this will be treated as mitigating circumstances and the sentence will be reduced. However, I will still be punished.
Given the choice, would you prefer to live in a society where everyone who broke down doors without a very good reason were punished, and everyone who threatened others into giving them money were punished? Or would you prefer to live in a society where certain classes of people had an exemption, where they could break down doors indiscriminately, without good reason, and threaten people into giving them money without being punished at all?
If a person doesn’t give the question its full consideration, most people will say, of course they would prefer to live in a society where the law is applied evenly. But what is the full extent of this proposition?
Police, having no right to arrest anybody whom they didn’t reasonably suspect of harming someone or their property, will decide to keep mostly to themselves, or find productive ways of maintaining the peace, by establishing ties with the community and gaining its trust. Instead of demanding someone pull over for driving too fast, they would calmly and politely ask, and attempt to persuade them that their actions exposed themselves and others to undue risk.
Judges, knowing that they will be liable for any command they make, will be unwilling to enact any punishment against peaceful people, for example, for buying or selling drugs.
Politicians would be scared to pass any legislation punishing anyone who hadn’t harmed another – making the job of politician almost completely unnecessary. And they certainly wouldn’t call for acts of war which endangered the lives of innocent civilians, because every innocent killed could be a charge of manslaughter. Likewise, soldiers would refuse to attack unless they could be certain they were only attacking a legitimate threat.
Tax collectors would decide to change tactics, knowing they couldn’t threaten anybody into getting their money, and so they would instead canvas for donations, or turn to charging for individual services.
If you agree with the premise that those who injure, threaten or steal from others should be punished, you might have to rethink what the problems with the world are, and what your idea of an ideal world might be. If you disagree, and believe that certain classes of people should be free to attack, threaten and steal from others, and even commit mass murder, then again I would suggest you reconsider where your ideas might lead, what kind of ideal world they imply, and whether that is really the kind of thing you want to support, in your heart or in your actions. Do you really want to be a detractor of civilisation, welcoming violence as necessary, along with all of the abuses of power that come with it?
Making a more peaceful world isn’t easy. There will be challenges along the way, inventing new ways of solving problems with less and less violence, or no violence, when previously we believed they were only solvable with violence. And maybe we’ll never achieve such a thing in our lifetimes, or in any lifetime. But when you look back on your life, with your dying breath, will you be content in knowing that your entire life you supported the status quo, that violence is a requirement? Or would you be more content knowing that you dared to dream, to imagine a world without war, without police brutality and abuses of power, where the word “civilisation” is not a euphemism for a society dominated by the threat of violence, but, through an entire population becoming civil, is a literal fact.
I’m not asking much. I’m not asking you to do or say anything, or even exert any effort. I’m just asking you to let go of one idea, the idea that “violence is necessary” – the conviction that even an ideal world must include threats of violence – because whatever happens, the thought of dominating your fellow man out of necessity can never make you happy. To liberate yourself from this idea is to open up new possibilities, to open yourself to compassion for your fellow man, and to embrace the innocent as worthy of your protection.
