Overwhelm and the Layers of Discernment: Principles and the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations

by nielskunze on July 14, 2016

Braving the Current

Braving the Current

As I’ve recently stated, I strongly believe that we are currently heading into a phase of maximum chaos… in all layers of reality.

This is what I’ve (we’ve) been waiting for.

Crisis is opportunity– the opportunity for significant change. Times of maximum chaos are also times of greatest vulnerability. The chaos of longstanding structures tumbling down around us pitches us into a place of uncertainty, and if we succumb to fear we can be easily manipulated in such moments. In such instances, the manipulation most often comes through the savior paradigm. When things are uncertain, we’re overwhelmed and confused, that’s when we’re the most vulnerable to the promise of being rescued. There’s nothing wrong with accepting help in such moments, but we must always be cognizant of any and all strings attached to our seeming rescue. It is precisely in our vulnerability that we must be most aware. (Fortunately, awareness and vulnerability– in the absence of fear– go happily hand-in-hand.)

Right now, many feel threatened by overwhelm; it’s like we’re falling into a dark abyss. We can be certain that navigating these times, right now, will be difficult– if we’re not perfectly clear within ourselves. We have to be able to see through the bullshit; we must know exactly where we stand on all pertinent issues; quite simply, we need well-defined principles and the gumption to stand by them… no matter what.

By definition, principles are ‘that which comes first.’ Our first loyalty in every decision we make must be to our own well-defined principles. That, and that alone, unfailingly cuts through all the bullshit, sees the way ahead clearly, and supports our total integrity.

It is not my prerogative to define your principles for you. All I can suggest is looking into the tenets of Natural Law.

But very closely related to principled action is dealing with core issues and root causes. We live in a seemingly complex world where there appears to be endless room for debate on every issue imaginable. Nothing in the political arena, in the financial markets or even in matters of health ever seem to find satisfactory resolution. The complexity and irresolvability of our many conundrums can be largely blamed on our failure to identify and resolve core issues or root causes.

The place of endless debate on issues like politics, monetary policy, vaccines or abortion– this occurs within a realm I have dubbed the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations. Nothing is ever satisfactorily resolved within the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations. It’s a place where we just endlessly spin our wheels, and ultimately those who are engaged here in debate invariably become more polarized and entrenched in their own views. It is exceedingly rare that anyone ever learns anything of value in the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations.

It is quite likely that we will all find ourselves mired in the muck of unending distraction in the coming days. We need to cultivate the ability to cut through the shit and clearly see the core issues of what’s really at stake. When we effectively deal with the core issues according to our own principles, everything becomes crystal clear and ridiculously easy.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand what I mean here is to walk through a few examples. My identification of the core issues in the following examples are not absolute; they are the core issues as I see them. You are perfectly free to disagree, but they will serve to illustrate my point nevertheless.

Let’s begin with one that I see as an obvious one: abortion. The abortion debate has long been stuck in the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations. The real issue which the abortion debate continually fails to address is the issue of unwanted pregnancy. Debating about the morality or immorality of abortion is secondary to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. If the dialogue was instead centred around how society can begin to reduce and eventually eliminate unwanted pregnancies, then obviously the questions surrounding abortion become meaningless or moot.

Here’s another one ripped from today’s headlines: gun control. This latest incident in Dallas where a sniper (or snipers) killed five cops and injured several others is perfect for our purposes. So many love to jump on the gun-control bandwagon when these tragedies (or false flags) occur. Let’s take the narrative at face value: one shooter and people actually died. Those who are stuck in the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations will point to the easy availability of guns as the main issue. But this is obviously absurd. Here we have an individual who has formed a strong and clear intent to murder (white) cops. The incident was clearly well planned in advance, so the intent is longstanding– not just a momentary whim of someone who’s had too many beers. And the intent is perfectly serious in that the individual is quite willing to risk his own life in carrying it out. I personally think that this is a big deal… and this murderous intent is the core issue. The fact that there are intelligent, functional members of American society who harbor such intents IS the critical issue. Their access to the various tools available for carrying out such an intent is clearly secondary. It is the murderous intent itself which needs resolution. And in this case in particular, it has been additionally revealed that the perp had bomb-making supplies in his residence as well. That tells us that the availability of guns would have made little or no difference to the implementation of this intent.

Now let’s look at the example of vaccines. In trying to identify core issues, I quite often play little hypothetical games with myself. When it comes to vaccines, I like to pretend that the science is solid, that vaccines are safe, and that they perform exactly as their proponents claim. No, I don’t actually believe that, but it’s often useful to assume that even if I grant the other side of the debate the benefit of every doubt, I find that I’m still not interested in vaccines at all and their alleged benefits. The core issue, for me, is more paradigmatic.

Vaccines are a micromanagement strategy toward health; there’s nothing holistic about them. A vaccine is only effective against the specific pathogens they target, if they’re effective at all. And as the overwhelming evidence indicates, the supposed increased immunity against a singular pathogen comes at the expense– at least temporarily, and sometimes permanently– of overall immunity to all pathogens. To me it’s obvious that this is a stupid strategy for health– and that’s even if vaccine science is perfectly sound.

It makes far more sense to do everything I can to boost my overall immunity to ALL pathogens through the support of my innate, natural immune system through holistic means like nutrition and lifestyle considerations. From personal experience, I know that engaging in debate within the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations about vaccines solves absolutely nothing; those engaged in the debate merely accumulate mountains of evidence for their own entrenched view and then argue with others as to whose mountain is bigger. Every single time I’ve stepped into that debate it has resulted in further polarization and exactly zero resolution. I hope that it is clear how cutting straight to the core issue as I’ve described above cuts instantly through all the shit. I’m not even slightly interested in anyone’s mountain of evidence; I reject the theory at the outset.

Closely related to the vaccine debate is the whole modern medical paradigm. I reject it wholesale for much the same reason; and I have no need to debate it. It is clear to me that the modern diagnose-and-drug-’em paradigm almost never even attempts to deal with the root cause of any ailment. There is never any talk of cure, just treatment options. The root cause of symptoms and symptom profiles is routinely ignored. Consider the following hypothetical conversation with a doctor:

“Your blood pressure is dangerously high.”

“What can we do about it, doc?”

“Here’s a prescription that’ll very likely handle it.”

“And this’ll cure me?”

“No, it’ll just get it under control.”

“How long do I stay on the medication for?”

“For the rest of your life.”

“What! I’d rather seek a cure, if you don’t mind.”

“Be my guest, but I think you’re wasting your time. The drugs are very reliable; I have hundreds of patients on them. Why bother with finding a cure when we have such an excellent treatment protocol?”

“I’d just rather not be dependent on the drugs for the rest of my life. I mean, years ago my blood pressure was fine; I was healthy. Something must have caused my blood pressure to skyrocket. I want to know that cause… and to address it. It’s important to me. And besides, if I ignore the root cause… and mask the symptoms of my body’s response to that cause, aren’t I just asking for more serious trouble down the road?”

The modern medical paradigm does not seem to understand this perspective– to their detriment and eventual obsolescence. And I didn’t even mention the clear superiority of preventative medicine over remedial medicine– another topic about which our modern doctors have very little to say.

So far, these examples have been mainly oriented toward the formulation of my own personal stance– how I personally cut through the shit and get down to the brass tacks. I’ll offer one more at the personal level before we move on to some important considerations soon to be faced by the entire collective of humanity.

Ever-so-briefly let’s look at the gay marriage debate. Being gay, I’m frequently asked to weigh in on this one. Surprisingly to most, I’m not in favour of gay marriage, but not for the usual stick-in-the-mud reasons within the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations. For me, it’s this simple: I don’t believe in traditional marriage– that of a civil legally binding contract between lovers. That the state makes any claim upon the relationship between lovers or life partners is asinine… and exists as a control mechanism. If I don’t believe in traditional marriage, I certainly won’t lift a finger to campaign for gay marriage. Some may wish to argue that the core issue is one of equality, and that is their prerogative. But I reserve the individual right to reject any such equality if I view it as a fundamental degradation of human dignity, as I do.

Now let’s shift gears from the overtly personal to some collective considerations we may all face very soon.

The first deals with all this incessant talk in recent years about an impending overhaul of the global financial system. I would agree that such a housecleaning is long overdue, but it’s going to be very important that we keep our eye on the ball… once we’ve correctly identified which ball is the real mover and shaker within the system. Almost the entire narrative thus far is centred around Secondary Considerations such as Basel III compliance, asset-backing, and the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. None of these will do anything meaningful to address the core issue– or flaw– in the financial system as it still exists. All these Secondary Considerations can do is to slow down the process of wealth erosion and agglomeration within the current Ponzi scheme– even once it’s reset. So what is the core issue?

The root cause of our global debt slavery lies primarily in the way money comes into existence. I hope it is obvious that this is a fundamental aspect of economics; I don’t really see how there can be anything more fundamental than the very way in which money is created.

In the current system, money is almost exclusively created through debt instruments with compound interest attached. That’s it; that’s the core nugget lying at the heart of our debt slavery. What it means is that money comes into common circulation through the issuance of debt– debt that does not even represent any real-world wealth. And attached to the debt– to all debt– is the promise of repayment with interest– compound interest. Now, the only way that the interest on any loan (money as debt) can be repaid is through others incurring more debt in order to bring enough money into existence to make it mathematically possible to repay. And that new debt also comes into existence with compound interest obligations attached. What necessarily results can be very accurately likened to a Ponzi scheme where the system remains ‘afloat’ as long as there are enough ‘new players’ investing into the system, whereby the new debt is able to reasonably pay off the interest obligations of the old debt. At some point– inevitably– the total indebtedness of everyone participating in the system reaches a liquidity crisis. There’s simply too much debt accrued and not enough new debtors bellying up to the bar to keep the debt serviceable. This outcome is a mathematical certainty within our financial system as it’s currently structured; it’s totally unavoidable. Yes, the inevitability can be postponed or slowed down through the common Secondary Considerations being discussed, but ultimately they solve nothing of real import.

I hope that it is obvious to everyone that we are pretty much at the point globally where we’re collectively experiencing this inevitable liquidity crisis.

As the current system collapses, as it must, it is up to us to ensure that this fundamental core issue of how money is actually created is satisfactorily resolved. Worthy of note in this critical discussion in addition to what is explained above is that the issuing of currency is in the hands of private interests. This is just the cherry on top of the melting financial sundae, but it should be additionally noted that most countries have provisions within their own constitutions and legislation that allows for national governments to issue currency interest free. Right now, our governments choose not to; hm, I wonder why…? (In Canada, there is currently a lawsuit in the courts pertaining to this very issue involving the Canadian federal government and the Bank of Canada as defendants.)

The next collective issue we may soon have to face is that of government itself. What is the basic purpose of government? To me, that’s the core issue right there. We, as a people, need to have that conversation. Why do we have government? Do we need government? If we accept government, what is its primary goal, purpose, obligation? We need to be clear on this– both the people and their governments; it’s the only way we can repair this most dysfunctional relationship within our societies.

So far, I have refrained from providing any core principles, but now’s the time. The core principle when it comes to government– and every single other issue raised in this essay, frankly– is the principle of self-determination. The right for any sentient being in existence to decide its own experience, its own fate, to choose its personal destiny for growth and evolution, or not– is, in my view, the basic issue at the root of all argument or civil discourse. Self-determination– or free will, in spiritual or metaphysical parlance– is the infallible guide to navigating through the seeming complexity of these tumultuous times.

It seems clear to me that government, in its current iteration, stands in clear opposition to individual self-determination. It is actually the very notion of authority– a thoroughly false concept– which stands in opposition to the individual’s divine right to choose for oneself… but we’ll return to the concept of authority shortly.

Isn’t it ironic that framed clearly within the US constitution is the defined role of government as the protector and guarantor of unalienable individual rights… when it is that same US government which has so unashamedly eroded and nearly obliterated those same rights? The original intentions have gone so very far astray! Any ‘correction’ will absolutely have to come from the people.

I have difficulty imagining that there are people who do not support the principle of self-determination, but from the worshippers of government to the religious zealots, it’s actually a pervasive perspective. In the coming reformation, it will be difficult to reinstate the sacredness of our individual right to choose, so let’s be clear on it. The very acceptance of democracy (or a constitutional republic) in theory, demonstrates clearly that the people do place value in the right to choose; we have just become collectively blind or distracted from the erosions and violations– and the ultimate correctness– of that sacred right.

Personally, I believe in individual sovereignty or peaceful anarchy– a society without rulers. But I also know that we can’t leap from our current quagmire and its erroneous thinking to such an ideal in a single bound. Transitionally, we will still require a form of government to demonstrate and educate in regard to the soundness of the sovereign perspective. In all likelihood, such a government will be in the form of a democracy– which allows for sovereign individuals to arrive at a collective consensus.

When discussing the functionality of democracy, the core issue of its ability to function as intended resides in transparency. Transparency is the keyword for democracy. I have long said that none of us currently lives in a functional democracy of any kind. Once again, this isn’t open for debate; it’s just the truth of our situation. All power in a democracy derives from the people– from their ability to make informed decisions for the future of their collective. Whenever you have a government which routinely withholds any information about its goals and activities from the electorate, in any measure, for any reason, it is IMPOSSIBLE to regard such a government as functionally democratic. Let me reiterate: none of us currently lives in a functional democracy of any kind.

Additionally, the problem of our version of democracy is one of sitting governments– those whom we call representatives. Over generations, they have accrued false power unto themselves, resulting in the false perception that the seats of government themselves hold power. In an actual democracy, this is absurd. Our democratic government administrators are nothing more than contractors– much like the guy you hire to remodel your bathroom. He’s there only to carry out your wishes, according to your budget, on your timeframe. If he can’t deliver within those specs, he’s fired. Pretty simple, right?

Technologically, we are already beyond the need for any type of representational government. The people can already effectively govern their collective concerns directly through the internet. Any such direct form of democracy would have to be absolutely transparent in order to assure its integrity. The means for such absolute transparency is already well-developed and widely available in the form of software provided at GitHub. What I’m proposing here is open-sourced government. In open-source collaborations, GitHub keeps a detailed record of every alteration or input of the entire open-sourced platform. No one is able to participate anonymously, and any malicious intent is unerringly exposed for all to see permanently. It’s really hard or perhaps impossible to effectively fuck with GitHub collaborations. We would still likely need to hire administrators to carry out the details of the public consensus, but as I suggested above, these would be hired contractors, nothing more.

And this– finally– brings us to the topic of authority.

Let me begin this final linchpin discussion from an obtuse angle. Let’s start with a discussion of human ego.

Ego is that aspect of consciousness which interfaces between our inner reality and its outer reflection. In our distractifying modern world, ego has a tendency to over-focus outwardly, largely ignoring the inner reality, and subsequently becomes overblown or unbalanced.

The human ego can be likened to a balloon. The air which inflates it is called authority– and that’s just so much hot air. The action of authority is to assume a stance of superiority irrespective of any real merit. When the ego gets overinflated with its own importance it expands and stretches like a blown-up balloon. Eventually, the rubber skin becomes so stretched and tense as to become translucent and oh-so-very-fragile. The slightest touch on its surface with a metaphorical pin– like a sharp word or a criticism– can cause that ego balloon to instantly explode.

Conversely, an ego which only recognizes authority as an inner guide– “I am my own authority”– never becomes overinflated. There is only enough ‘air’ in that balloon to give it shape, but the rubber isn’t stretched at all; there’s no tension. An ego in such a state can be pelted with sharp ‘pins’ all day long and is very unlikely to ever get damaged.

Let’s look a bit closer at authority.

Authority is a false concept. It does not exist in nature. “Oh sure Niels, tell that to the grizzly bear over there!” What? You think he’s an authority? Not at all. The grizzly has a natural physical superiority over me. That’s a simple fact; it has nothing to do with authority. If the bear coerces a skunk to come over and stinkify me on the bear’s behalf, that’s authority… but that sort of thing never happens in nature.

Authority is a social agreement. And it’s a stupid one, allowing a society’s members to skirt self-responsibility. Most often, authority is a mental convolution or justification for carrying out obviously immoral acts– witness the soldier or the policeman. Morality is solely based in behaviour. It is what we do which determines our moral status. To knowingly cause harm to another sentient being is always immoral. It matters not one whit whether we have contrived fanciful justifications in our own minds– based in the false concept of authority– to absolve our culpability. The only place the justification exists is in the perp’s own mind, nowhere else… and it’s a lie. We cannot justify doing harm in the attempt to eliminate harm; it’s absurd and hypocritical.

What the metaphorical balloon is to individual ego, a house of cards is at the level of the collective. The false notion of authority has been built up in our societies to such a monstrous degree that the slightest breeze threatens to set the whole thing tumbling in an instant. I believe that that is precisely what’s coming. The authoritarian house of cards will come down… but it will be up to us to prevent its resurrection because we know that it is false, unsustainable and completely unnecessary.

In our societies we have long recognized that authority needs to be contained or controlled. This comes from the recognition that power corrupts. Authority claims power over others. We need some sort of regulatory mechanism to make sure that authority doesn’t get out of control and move into abject despotism. Traditionally, we have relied on authority itself to regulate its own actions. For example, all police departments have an internal affairs division which is responsible for policing the police. In essence, we are relying on the authorities to self-regulate. Think about that.

If we can accept the possibility of self-regulation, then why in the world would we need authority in the first place? If self-regulation is possible (it’s called self-control), then humanity can regulate itself without the need to appeal to the false god of authority.

The existence of authority in my society does not make me moral; that is ALWAYS a personal choice. Please, let’s recognize that fact.

The times that are now upon us will demand much from us, especially those who are clear and direct. There will be multitudinous enticements to get dragged back into the Quagmire of Secondary Considerations. We will need voices who are able to cut through all the shit to speak up and say “Enough of failed systems, false concepts and unsustainable structures!” We’ve been there. We’ve done that. Enough already.

When things start to fall apart in earnest, we don’t all need to sift through the piles of shit with a fine-toothed comb. If we clearly understand the core issues and root causes before us, if we are clear on our own principles, we can navigate successfully through the coming shitstorm… without getting covered head to toe.

The principles that are most operative in my understanding and action are self-determination, transparency and decentralization. (Centralization is a tool of authority, nothing more.)

Here, I have tried to provide food for thought. There’s no requirement for you to adopt my views, but I’d appreciate it if you’d consider them. I welcome all collaboration on these vital matters.

Becoming principled– allowing our principles to guide all of our behaviours– is about the only form of ‘ascension’ I can recognize. It is our principles which allow us to rise above all the extraneous shit in the Quagmire. The authorities can’t and won’t help us; in fact, they’ll do everything in their false power to thwart our every sane action. If ever there was a time to wise up, humanity, it’s now.

Get clear. Be strong. And stand in the truth of your knowing, fearlessly.

I HIGHLY recommend the following presentation from Mark Passio:

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.