Posts Tagged ‘borders’

should governments be peaceful?

March 29, 2012


It seems to me that many people seem to be confused about the nature of governments and, perhaps even of language itself. A border is not a boundary that is maintained by ink on paper or by a voice out of someone’s mouth. A border and the patterns of activity within it are simply patterns. A border exists by enforcement as in the activity of people- which may or may not correlate with words.

I could say that many people also seem to believe that war should not be in geopolitics simply because propaganda implies to them

Barack Obama at the University of Nevada, Las ...

Barack Obama at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Presidential Health Care Forum, March 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

that words are the foundations of government, so words can be sufficient. For instance, Obama may promise one thing (such as to remove all the US military troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office), then, if he does not do it- then people are actually surprised again and again by the words of the politicians, listening now to Ron Paul or next to whoever: whatever new political savior fits their particular desire for someone else to be responsible for them.

Perhaps governments are in place as a boundary between those who are responsible for themselves- including in the conducting of warfare- and those who are in trances, subject to the hypnotic and irrefutable illusion that government is the great source of all life, of all things holy, of salvation and redemption and so on. In other words, governments are just churches.

Governments are, according to paradigm of political correctness AKA totalitarianism, the presumed vehicle for our changing the world. We worship governments.

That, of course, is optional. However, it is a defining feature of the “sheeple.” Whoever worships government- wanting to reform them and so on- is among the mainstream sheeple, with their paradigm that presumes that government is the center of power and social organization.

That belief, of course, is central to the influence of governments- that people believe that governments actually could and in fact do have a monopoly on influence (or at least “should”). Again, that is perhaps the fundamental tenet of totalitarianism: governments are the only “correct” authority. That is, individuals and private groups should not have any influence. Then, of course, there is the question of how is the exact “right” way for governments to exert their totalitarian influence.

“Should the government allow private health care services or not, and how should the government influence the health care industry, direct it, guide it, govern it?” Instead of just regulating foreign affairs and the relations of individuals and companies, the totalitarian model of government is not just the government regulates, but that government directs and provides… and not just a few things like eudcation and health care, but everything.

On the other hand, many forecasters including myself see that there are financial stability issues increasing for various governing operations, including many state and local governments in the US. Will individuals and private groups such as churches accept responsibility for leading, or will they call on governments to lead them “how they should?”

Are governments the servants of the people or the leaders of the people? Ah, but perhaps the answer is “both” and the real question then is which people direct governments and which people follow them….

first Published on: Dec 2, 2009

Related articles

The Archbishop of Canterbury gives the Queen Elizabeth II a sword, prior to the Coronation ceremony, 02 June 1953 in Westminster Abbey. AFP

The Queen of England is the local authority crowned under the authority of the Papacy and the agents of the Holy Roman Empire:



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 756 other followers

%d bloggers like this: