Analysis is paralysis

[Understand]

The movement is not a movement, it's a stagnant thing that just want to dream and debate how the future might look or work.

We will sit and discuss it, without much happening, until the system and it's tyrannical government and corporations has got us so caged in that we eventually lose.

 

It's like discussing how we should build a house on the island we are fleeing to. Problem is, we are on a sinking ship while doing that, and people are not talking about how to build a boat to get out of the ship. Instead they discuss how the future should look like. It ends with everyone drowning.

 

The problem with the movement is that everyone want to do their own thing.

Either we philosophize in all eternity about RBE or a free market. It's much nicer to just sit and talk than to act.

 

What they should do is to unite in a common goal - get rid of the tyrannical system and AFTER that we can philosophize how we should build a new system.

If every revolution were this intellectualized, it would have got nowhere!

At the same time it's important to not repeat the same mistakes, but it's sure hell of a lot better to do something wrong than to do nothing. Analysis is paralysis.

 

The movement is so dependent on awareness that it forgets action with a clear goal and something to work against.

It becomes stagnant and no one wants to engage in something without a goal or a plan.

 

 

Describe the movement

Even though I want to describe the truth movement in a more concrete way.

Truth movement doesn't work for the mainstream citizens and myself sometimes seems to stumble - what am I fighting against and for?

 

Something that can unite left and right. Anonymous, Zeitgeist, Thrive, TVP, FDR, Russell Brand and everyone between.

How can you appeal with a word or slogan that would make citizens engaged?

One word or meaning.

[dsayers]

get rid of the tyrannical system and AFTER that we can philosophize how we should build a new system.

I don't think you realize that "philosophizing" is how you get rid of the tyrannical system. If the enforcer class stood up right now and said to the ruling class, "No, we reject your claim that we exist in a different, opposing moral category," we'd have peace RIGHT NOW and without any bloodshed.

 

The problem is that the enforcer class DOES accept that claim as the result of being abused as children. Complete with fairy tales about nationalism, duty, patriotism, etc. Revealing the gun in the room, thinking rationally from first principles, analyzing WHY people fall for these things in the first place and/or reject the truth as a result, and most importantly convincing parents to not aggress against their children does so much to end human aggression.

 

I think it's irresponsible to be anxious in the moment to the point of telling the people who are saving the world that it's not enough just because you're anxious that the results can't be enjoyed right this second.

[Koroviev]

Is peaceful parenting not "doing something." Isn't this the whole point of peaceful parenting and spreading peaceful parenting so that we have intelligent humans for generations to come who create more intelligent and peaceful humans. But maybe you're right trying to start a revolution but attempting to change the minds of people who have been brainwashed their entire lives or overthrowing the system would probably work way better...

[Understand]

I don't think you realize that "philosophizing" is how you get rid of the tyrannical system. If the enforcer class stood up right now and said to the ruling class, "No, we reject your claim that we exist in a different, opposing moral category," we'd have peace RIGHT NOW and without any bloodshed.

 

The problem is that the enforcer class DOES accept that claim as the result of being abused as children. Complete with fairy tales about nationalism, duty, patriotism, etc. Revealing the gun in the room, thinking rationally from first principles, analyzing WHY people fall for these things in the first place and/or reject the truth as a result, and most importantly convincing parents to not aggress against their children does so much to end human aggression.

 

I think it's irresponsible to be anxious in the moment to the point of telling the people who are saving the world that it's not enough just because you're anxious that the results can't be enjoyed right this second.

 

Don't tell me what I realize or not before asking questions, thank you.

On topic, you simply disregard that the philosophy community is not passive?

For example, the Arabic spring or Ukrainian revolution, how much "philosophizing" was it there? I don't doubt, I know it's not on the level of Stefan or any other "movement". So it kinda counters your argument that we need to philosophize everything to the extent of passivity.

I can tell you - the movement as it exists on the level of discussing this idea won't grow much more than this. The 90% rest of the world will not suddenly become interested in these things. You have to simply things. As Stefan said recently, people are followers and we are not to wait until they understand what's going on.

 

I'm sorry, did I offend you? I didn't mean that those "saving the world" is not doing enough, but maybe on the wrong path. The point of a leader or people is to lead them on the right path and we are just standing still on the path I think. We have to get it moving. What's the goal? Vision? Plan?

I don't think it's irresponsible to anxious, it's a great emotion to get you going. So is anger. The philosophizing community is these powerful thinkers but the seem to lack the execution. They are doing their part, but we need the people that gets things done.

[jpahmad]

The philosophizing community is these powerful thinkers but the seem to lack the execution. They are doing their part, but we need the people that gets things done.

 

You take the lead.  What are you going to do?

[Mister Mister]

For example, the Arabic spring or Ukrainian revolution, how much "philosophizing" was it there? I don't doubt, I know it's not on the level of Stefan or any other "movement".

 

How are things going in those countries?  Are you not familiar with the potential negative outcomes of mob revolutions?

[dsayers]

Don't tell me what I realize or not before asking questions, thank you.

I didn't tell you anything. I was honest about my experience. Also, your opening post was talking to people about what they're doing without asking questions. So why do you think you are exempt from a standard you would put forth for somebody else as if they're bound to it?

[Puck2.0]

The movement is not a movement, it's a stagnant thing that just want to dream and debate how the future might look or work.

We will sit and discuss it, without much happening, until the system and it's tyrannical government and corporations has got us so caged in that we eventually lose.

 

It's like discussing how we should build a house on the island we are fleeing to. Problem is, we are on a sinking ship while doing that, and people are not talking about how to build a boat to get out of the ship. Instead they discuss how the future should look like. It ends with everyone drowning.

 

The problem with the movement is that everyone want to do their own thing.

Either we philosophize in all eternity about RBE or a free market. It's much nicer to just sit and talk than to act.

 

What they should do is to unite in a common goal - get rid of the tyrannical system and AFTER that we can philosophize how we should build a new system.

If every revolution were this intellectualized, it would have got nowhere!

At the same time it's important to not repeat the same mistakes, but it's sure hell of a lot better to do something wrong than to do nothing. Analysis is paralysis.

 

The movement is so dependent on awareness that it forgets action with a clear goal and something to work against.

It becomes stagnant and no one wants to engage in something without a goal or a plan.

 

 

Describe the movement

Even though I want to describe the truth movement in a more concrete way.

Truth movement doesn't work for the mainstream citizens and myself sometimes seems to stumble - what am I fighting against and for?

 

Something that can unite left and right. Anonymous, Zeitgeist, Thrive, TVP, FDR, Russell Brand and everyone between.

How can you appeal with a word or slogan that would make citizens engaged?

One word or meaning.

One word: Love.

[Laforge]

Okay let's build a city on some strip of dirt off the west coast of Canada.
What we consider 'unowned' the Canadian govt considers their legal property.

CNN news:
On May, 5th 2016 a unknown force of indoctrinated anarchists unlawfully annexed one of our crappy tiny islands. The group of 50 mostly armed men where suspect terrorists from an evil internet forum. The navy took care of the threat by one salvo of air bombardment.

Reaction from the sheeple who hear the story:
Wow thank god the govt protected us! Maybe the govt needs to regulate the dangerous internet more rigorously. Or the NSA needs to spy on people more fiercely!

---

Stage 1: spread the message, turn sheeple into people who see through media propaganda and political rhetoric.
Stage 2: make sure nobody votes.
Stage 3: that's it theres only 2 stages really. But it looks more cool if i sum up 3. (actually just stage 1 is enough)
 

[Going.Galt]

.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Oh, it's a movement alright. Plenty of people here are taking steps to raise their children peacefully, and speak uncomfortable truths to those around them. The show is reaching millions with information that before did not even exist, much less was it able to be communicated on such a large scale without censorship.

 

The thing is, we here are not creating change for a revolution. Have you looked at revolutions of past? None have created sustainable change. Slavery of the past was never ended revolution, and our modern slavery will not end by revolution. Revolutions are for changing the masters, not ending slavery. It is to give new people, the people calling for revolution, the chance to grasp the ring of power. It is a powerful high to hold it, but that is all it is without and underlying evolution of the morality of the species. To end slavery, you need generations of people who are willing to sacrifice and speak moral truth until it no longer will be possible for people to be in doubt about their chains.

 

We're creating change for an evolution, and that by definition will require ingenuity, not a succumbing to failed "solutions" of the past.

[Cantharis]

Lots of people are working all the time to create content that spreads the message of liberty. People open up newer and newer blogs to talk aboout their ideas about freedom and non-aggression, myself included. So it is pretty rude to just simply dismiss many many people's hard work available for free and say that nobody is doing anything except wisdomwanking. 

[thebeardslastcall]

Well I see two different aspects or styles, one productive, one not productive, to what people do when talking. You could say one is philosophy and the other is based on a philosophy, but not quite philosophy anymore. The unproductive style is asking how the roads will be built in a free society, asking how dispute resolution organizations will work, and other such questions of fine tuning the later applications once freedom is had. These are the equivalent of designing the roads in the city that you want to be a part of on land, while the boat is sinking and you'll never get there wasting your time talking about just that stuff and which makes the issue worse as it distracts from the sinking boat.

 

The other approach is talking about the gun in the room and making people uncomfortable with the truth. Getting people to accept that while they may be enjoying a nice meal and having a good time now the boat is taking on water and sinking and you're the one pointing out that it's wrong to keep shooting holes in the hull and that the boat is going to sink. This is more productive in that it gets people to acknowledge the problem and to deal with the morality of the situation and to reject what is fundamentally keeping them down.

 

Once people accept a proper philosophy of how to arrive at truth and how to judge morality and how to be moral then all the later problems aren't really a problem, because they've accepted a common method of how to resolve issues peacefully. That's what we need to promote, peaceful, sane, and moral evaluation of a situation and ways of how to resolve issues based on these methods and principles without resorting to violence. Thus constrained the worse and present problem is solved and it merely becomes a question of efficiency, which is another important problem to solve, but a huge step up and beyond the core problem we face now.

We need to forget efficiency and general functionality questions and focus on the current problem of morality, sanity, and acceptance of the current systemic immoralities. That's our job, to be the person that accepts some vitriol and hate for spreading these truths and telling people they're immoral if they willingly ignore moral responsibility. People are evil because they think there is a fundamental difference between intentional and unintentional evil and thus they fight awareness and hide from knowledge, steeping themselves in moral ignorance, because then they can pretend they're moral and they think so long as they can pretend they're moral that they are in fact moral, but this is quite wrong. It isn't just the thought or intention that counts if the thought or intention is willingly ignorant then they've accepted evil is okay so long as they're not sure. This is one of the big ways evil proliferates, people are willing to be immoral so long as they can pretend they aren't being immoral. They know social judgement is the dangerous bit of stealing from someone and so long as they can evade social judgement they're fine stealing and being violent. That's why evil hates philosophers, because we point it out, remove evil's camouflage, and force people to give it up or accept it and receive the lash back of social awareness of their evil. This is also why people tend to pretend to be dumb and hate smart people, because smart people can see the hypocrisy and when they acknowledge it or accept it and still behave like them the behavior scares the crap out of them, because they aren't playing the pretend game. People are steeped in reliance on people playing the pretend game to provide cover for them playing it as well. The more people that are playing the pretend game the more brush cover there is for evil to hide under and the easier it is for people to just go along to get along without sanity checks. Religion is the proliferation of a specific group of pretenders.

 

 

Short version: Focus on pointing out pretenders and immorality and burn the brush to the ground that evil lurks under and de-camouflage evil wherever it lurks within people and remind people that they're morally culpable even if they're playing 'good'. They say "I'm good, I know I'm good" you say "wrong, and here's why...".

[A4E]

I got some ideas while reading this thread. One is that we can leave comments on videos of popular channels on youtube, with something relevant to the video, like ie "The x in this video is different from what freedomainradio has to say about this. I will have to think about this."  or  "I am glad I don't have to worry about x anymore after stumbling upon Stefan Molyneux"

 

Doesn't have to be worded like that, but the goal is for the author of the (popular) channel to look into the names, and in so doing might get to know the principles required for a peaceful world. And then hopefully spread that message on their channel. Also lots of the video watchers will see the comment and might start brush fires of their own.

 

Linking or blatant advertizing will not work, as it is repelled by most channels. It has to be done in a casual non imposing manner, which means a reflected text that is somewhat related to the video.

 

This same casual mentioning can be applied in all areas of internet, like facebook.

 

 

I agree with the general sentiment here. And the messages from peaceful truth loving people is gaining more and more ground slowly but surely. Without internet this would have been somewhat impossible. Internet is not old, and I would regard it as something in its teens. Its full potential is far from reached, and I would say it is truth's best friend so far.

[Understand]

How are things going in those countries?  Are you not familiar with the potential negative outcomes of mob revolutions?

 

Did I say it was supposed to be a mob and executed like those? Think outside the box! It can be done in thousand different ways!

 

I didn't tell you anything. I was honest about my experience. Also, your opening post was talking to people about what they're doing without asking questions. So why do you think you are exempt from a standard you would put forth for somebody else as if they're bound to it?

 

I agree on that I did a small judgement, but it was more a reflection, and I wasn't saying that someone didn't realize anything.

 

I got some ideas while reading this thread. One is that we can leave comments on videos of popular channels on youtube, with something relevant to the video, like ie "The x in this video is different from what freedomainradio has to say about this. I will have to think about this."  or  "I am glad I don't have to worry about x anymore after stumbling upon Stefan Molyneux"

 

Doesn't have to be worded like that, but the goal is for the author of the (popular) channel to look into the names, and in so doing might get to know the principles required for a peaceful world. And then hopefully spread that message on their channel. Also lots of the video watchers will see the comment and might start brush fires of their own.

 

Linking or blatant advertizing will not work, as it is repelled by most channels. It has to be done in a casual non imposing manner, which means a reflected text that is somewhat related to the video.

 

This same casual mentioning can be applied in all areas of internet, like facebook.

 

 

I agree with the general sentiment here. And the messages from peaceful truth loving people is gaining more and more ground slowly but surely. Without internet this would have been somewhat impossible. Internet is not old, and I would regard it as something in its teens. Its full potential is far from reached, and I would say it is truth's best friend so far.

 

THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR! Great ideas and actions! There are thousands of possibilities like we can do here!

[Understand]

I'm going to copy and paste a response I made in another thread recently because I think it speaks to the sentiment here, and I too feel that a dialogue should be opened up about action, however I do think that the tyrannical system is on it's own borrowed time and won't require a revolution in the historical sense to become unseated. 

 

I used to struggle with a similar sentiment so I know that feel, bro   . 

 

I think you are overwhelming yourself with a couple of unnecessary assumptions though and those are:

 

• That the enemy is an unstoppable force.

 

• That the unstoppable force you speak of is not evil.

 

 

First, let's clearly identify the enemy. Although the state is at the forefront, the enemy itself is an inverted morality. This manifests in many different pillars of destruction, but for this thread let's focus on one in particular, violence.

 

Violence, directly or indirectly is immoral, and thus evil. So to say that the force you claim to fight against is not evil creates the very frustration and helplessness that you are experiencing. The reality is proponents of violence are evil, and here is a brief checklist you can use as a foundation to start giving some direction in your fight because you can start pointing it out. 

 

Do you:

 

• Support the welfare state? This encompasses agreeing with, receiving benefits from, or not ostracizing those who do. This includes Obamacare.

 

• Support the discipline of children through violence (corporal punishment)? 

 

• Vote? This means for Trump or any power hungry ruler. A check-box under any name is the willful selection of a master to yourself and others as well as a vote for legitimizing the state and their violent practices.

 

 

Those are 3 fairly popular symptoms you can identify to start discussing causes. Any of those questions, if answered yes, gives you the ability to reduce that decision down to a question of morality; to good and evil. Now you have an enemy you can fight.

 

Interesting! I think you are on to something. Personally, I exchanged evil for sickness. It still makes me a bit powerless, but it makes me more soft against those who do horrible actions.

What do you think about that?

 

Well I see two different aspects or styles, one productive, one not productive, to what people do when talking. You could say one is philosophy and the other is based on a philosophy, but not quite philosophy anymore. The unproductive style is asking how the roads will be built in a free society, asking how dispute resolution organizations will work, and other such questions of fine tuning the later applications once freedom is had. These are the equivalent of designing the roads in the city that you want to be a part of on land, while the boat is sinking and you'll never get there wasting your time talking about just that stuff and which makes the issue worse as it distracts from the sinking boat.

 

The other approach is talking about the gun in the room and making people uncomfortable with the truth. Getting people to accept that while they may be enjoying a nice meal and having a good time now the boat is taking on water and sinking and you're the one pointing out that it's wrong to keep shooting holes in the hull and that the boat is going to sink. This is more productive in that it gets people to acknowledge the problem and to deal with the morality of the situation and to reject what is fundamentally keeping them down.

 

Once people accept a proper philosophy of how to arrive at truth and how to judge morality and how to be moral then all the later problems aren't really a problem, because they've accepted a common method of how to resolve issues peacefully. That's what we need to promote, peaceful, sane, and moral evaluation of a situation and ways of how to resolve issues based on these methods and principles without resorting to violence. Thus constrained the worse and present problem is solved and it merely becomes a question of efficiency, which is another important problem to solve, but a huge step up and beyond the core problem we face now.

 

We need to forget efficiency and general functionality questions and focus on the current problem of morality, sanity, and acceptance of the current systemic immoralities. That's our job, to be the person that accepts some vitriol and hate for spreading these truths and telling people they're immoral if they willingly ignore moral responsibility. People are evil because they think there is a fundamental difference between intentional and unintentional evil and thus they fight awareness and hide from knowledge, steeping themselves in moral ignorance, because then they can pretend they're moral and they think so long as they can pretend they're moral that they are in fact moral, but this is quite wrong. It isn't just the thought or intention that counts if the thought or intention is willingly ignorant then they've accepted evil is okay so long as they're not sure. This is one of the big ways evil proliferates, people are willing to be immoral so long as they can pretend they aren't being immoral. They know social judgement is the dangerous bit of stealing from someone and so long as they can evade social judgement they're fine stealing and being violent. That's why evil hates philosophers, because we point it out, remove evil's camouflage, and force people to give it up or accept it and receive the lash back of social awareness of their evil. This is also why people tend to pretend to be dumb and hate smart people, because smart people can see the hypocrisy and when they acknowledge it or accept it and still behave like them the behavior scares the crap out of them, because they aren't playing the pretend game. People are steeped in reliance on people playing the pretend game to provide cover for them playing it as well. The more people that are playing the pretend game the more brush cover there is for evil to hide under and the easier it is for people to just go along to get along without sanity checks. Religion is the proliferation of a specific group of pretenders.

That is very well put!

Do you think that I'm pointing out the gun in the room in terms of discussing this subject for the philosophers? Is that why some react like they do because I made them uncomfortable?

The gun in the room seems here seems to be the subject of taking action. They just want to sit and discuss the gun in the room, not take any real action of physically removing it.

Once again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't, but it's time that we also take some action as he writes in the text above.

[A4E]

The principles need to be recognized and respected in the minds first, and then results will appear virtually by themselves.

[MrNlul77]

@Understand, frankly your post is ignorant and imature, it reads like you believe youve had the most profound thoughts. I find your post laughable, ridiculous, and I question your grip /understanding on/of reality.

 

What is it that you "believe" is going on at FDR?.

 

Your post shows no understanding/respect for the concepts/ideas that underpin Stefans work or their future implications.

[jpahmad]

The movement is not a movement, it's a stagnant thing that just want to dream and debate how the future might look or work.

We will sit and discuss it, without much happening, until the system and it's tyrannical government and corporations has got us so caged in that we eventually lose.

 

 

 

Dude, I just realized you're not even donating any money to FDR.   I can't believe you're calling anyone out here.  

Why don't you "take action" and donate your labor to Stefan.  Otherwise fling off.