Perhaps it's human
nature to form collectives. These
collectives have grown over time from tribal to national. And these collectives have morphed to include
entities which are not human or natural at all.
The idea that corporations are equal entities among national collectives
of individuals is not natural and is not human, certainly not pro-human. In fact one has to shed common sense and shred
human decency to even consider lending institutions the rights of individuals
and inviting them, as equals and friends, into any collective.
In order to
understand anything it is important to boil it down, as if a math problem and
consider the least common denominators.
Institutions are not individuals.
Institutions can exist for hundreds or thousands of years, they do not
need clean air, water and food. They do
not need companionship. Institutions are
not your friends. They are simply
mechanizations. Institutions in the
world today seek growth. And
alternatively and occasionally more importantly they seek to prevent losses.
Institutions take
on a certain life of their own, but are only the characterization created by
individuals. They are tools of, for and
by people and normally only a select few people. Institutions are normally oligarchical to one
extent or another. An oligarchy is a
pyramid system where the few are in control of the many, the steeper the slant,
the more oligarchical the institution.
The U.S.A. was
founded on flattening the oligarchical world.
But now, with the buildup of the military industrial complex, the
private prison system and a slew of institutionalization which benefits the few
at the cost of the many, the U.S.A. is just another oligarchical nation among
many. Perhaps no other recent legislation
in the U.S.A. so spurs oligarchical collectivism as the Supreme Court decision
on Citizen's United. The Court's opinion
basically allows unlimited spending for political campaign advertising under
the guise of the First Amendment.
However the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written to bestow
rights on individuals by limiting what institutions were allowed to do and not
the other way around. The law enables
oligarchical collectivism by implementing the potential that a very few wealthy
people can fund an entire campaign instead of many contributors. If the Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of
Rights as written for individuals they would have kept the spending cap. The Bill of Rights was not meant to be
applied to expand the rights of institutions.
It describes the rights of individuals, especially the First
Amendment. In fact the First Amendment
uses the word people and describes acts which only people can do. The First Amendment describes rights of
individuals which when used correctly can defeat oligarchical collectivism and
when applied to institutions might bolster it.
In this one
Supreme Court decision we can see how governments essentially promote or
prohibit and the things they promote and prohibit shape the formation of the
nation. The Supreme Court decision on
Citizen's United is part of the global paradigm lending the rights of man to
machines. It is part of the global
tendency to disproportionately build up institutionalization rather than
individuation.
Governments
essentially promote and prohibit. And most
nations promote war and institutionalization which in turn prohibits peace and individuation. The U.S.A. is arguably the biggest war
country in the world now. Most nations
prepare for war and buildup war machines and in doing so they have to eliminate
peace and individuation. War is totally
anti-individual. The notion that militarism
builds individual character is not true.
Physical training and increased learning builds character, brotherhood builds
character, however war kills individuals.
In peace individuals can build up their surroundings and
themselves. In war only institutions are
built up.
If one boils down
the idea that government institutions simply promote and prohibit, as well as
the idea that they are basically martial institutions with martially enforced laws,
there are essentially four types of states.
This understanding can be utilized to understand both outside nation
states as well as inside mental states.
This metaphor of the duality of polarity as applied to the cross reference
of war and peace, by way of promotion and prohibition, is the metaphor of
thinking and being. People as well as
states are either at peace or at war.
The metaphor of
thinking and being, complete with one distinct part, displays the four states
of war and peace. The four states can be
applied to both internal and external states as well as to both individuals and
institutions. One state is of peace,
promotes peace and only prepares for peace.
Another state is of war, promotes war and only prepares for war. Another state is at war, promotes war and yet
is ready for peace. And the last state
is at peace, promotes peace and yet is ready for self-defense. One can imagine being in one of these states,
both internally and externally, and realize which is the more balanced and
prepared state.
What do
institutions promote and prohibit? Why
has the United States transformed from a state of the fourth type, one that is
at peace, promotes peace and yet is prepared for defense to a state, into a
state that is at war, promotes war and prepares for war. The United States of America is being taken
over by institutions and institutionalization.
We are turning into the worst type of nation, promoting and preparing
for war on people outside our nation with the biggest military budget in the
world and on people inside our nation with the biggest prison business in the
world. I strive to be at peace, to promote
peace, and to always be ready to defend myself, others around me and peace.
2
2
1
