Happier Abroad Forum Community

I have asked this before, and people are dumbfounded. Why can't I go my own way, and you go yours? I own guns, you don't. I understand why tptb want this, but why does the average person say this too. Why must I pay homage to the collective when it there is no connection?

The individual does not need to be part of the collective.

The current society, especially Western society is likely controlled by a Financial Cabal, a small group of powerful elites, the Illuminati, or whatever name they collectively call themselves. One aspect about control is brainwashing people with propaganda and it has worked to turn a majority of people in silent puppets who unknowingly conform to the beliefs they wish to instill upon the population. They also use a divide and conquer strategy to create discord and conflict as a diversion to distract people from the true issues and the root causes of the problems. Instead of enforcing censorship of free speech, they leave that up to the brainwashed mobs who will attack you, shame you, drive you out, make your life miserable, fire you from your job, and make it difficult for you to gain a new job. A person must pretend to support or at the minimum, agree, with the collective because that is the only way you can avoid being destroyed and have your life ruined.

The way I see it a person has five options:

1. Be a brainwashed conformist
2. Have their life ruined by openly challenging the collective
3. Use Machiavellianism and manipulate the system to rise above it.
4. Do not do anything, instead they recognize the problem but try to live beside it
5. These people do not know how to deal with everything that goes on in the Western World. This small minority of people commit crimes out of desperation or they snap and commit mass murder.

The only way to actually rise above the system is through Machiavellianism. It's the only way to play the game and hopefully win.

But Tsar, you're something of a monarchist, correct? You have a different notion of what the problem is.

To put it another way, my views were once in line with zacb's, but now I am closer to Tsar's.

So, zacb, I must ask, is this a serious question? Do you want a legitimate answer? Or are you just asking rhetorically?

When I said I felt like giving up before, that describes what I mean. Basically, giving up means being Machiavellian and playing head games, which I hate. Sometimes when you are working hard to get to the end game of happier abroad, it is hard as heck, and would be easy to take shortcuts. But I don't want to do that. And as far as why it is like this, I understand. But my question is that is there any good excuses? Basically, whenever I bring logic in, their arguement breaks down. Now, as far as anarchy is concerned, I understand the arguments about order, but as to why we must stick together, it is more circle jerk than anything else. No external referencing whatsoever.

Another great post Tsar. There really aren't enough who share these views. Mostly due to lack of exposure I think. It's so outside the mainstream.

zacb wrote:I have asked this before, and people are dumbfounded. Why can't I go my own way, and you go yours? I own guns, you don't. I understand why tptb want this, but why does the average person say this too. Why must I pay homage to the collective when it there is no connection?

"Wherever a man goes, men will pursue him and paw him with their dirty institutions, and, if they can, constrain him to belong to their desperate odd-fellow society."

Walden, Ch8: The Village
Henry David Thoreau

Tsar wrote: The best way to prevent money from buying power is to allow the power to be in the hands of a supreme leader of virtuous character.

What about Hitler? Was he a virtuous dictator who brought prosperity to his country? Why did the international bankers want to take him out so bad? I heard that Hitler never intended to start a world war. He only attacked Poland due to irreconcilable disputes over land between them. That was the impetus that the bankers needed to start a world war against Germany. For some reason, they needed to get rid of Hitler. Why didn't the allies start a war with Russia too, since they invaded Eastern Europe? The motives can't be altruistic, or else the allies would make war with every country that invades another, including the USA.

What is a Machiavellian? And what is a monarchist? Someone who believes in rule by kings and queens?

Winston wrote:

Tsar wrote: The best way to prevent money from buying power is to allow the power to be in the hands of a supreme leader of virtuous character.

What about Hitler? Was he a virtuous dictator who brought prosperity to his country? Why did the international bankers want to take him out so bad? I heard that Hitler never intended to start a world war. He only attacked Poland due to irreconcilable disputes over land between them. That was the impetus that the bankers needed to start a world war against Germany. For some reason, they needed to get rid of Hitler. Why didn't the allies start a war with Russia too, since they invaded Eastern Europe? The motives can't be altruistic, or else the allies would make war with every country that invades another, including the USA.

What is a Machiavellian? And what is a monarchist? Someone who believes in rule by kings and queens?

Machiavellianism (or machiavellian mask) is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct", deriving from the Italian Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince) and other works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism

A monarchist is a person who supports the principles of monarchy. A royalist also supports the principles of monarchy. Both can also be terms used to support an existing monarchy.

It's worse than that. An individual is expected to live to serve an organization or corporation or institution or government agency. He is not supposed to serve himself. That is seen as selfish and a bad thing. One is expected to give their life to others as though others own them and their life is not their own. It's stupid. They don't even give you a choice about it. It's like your life is to serve others only, not yourself. So you are supposed to live for external organizations and be willing to die for them if necessary, which is considered honorable. That is seen as the mark of a good man. A bad man only serves himself and is selfish. Unselfishness is always good and selfishness is always bad. It's black and white.

People ought to read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" booklet. It makes sense. Also Harry Brown's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" which has a chapter called "The Unselfishness Trap" that is very good and exposes this technique of society to control you and make you serve the collective.

It's also a huge contradiction for America to tell you that you are a free individual in a free country with free speech, yet at the same time tell you that you must conform to society's standards and serve the collective or an outside organization, and to not be selfish but treat your life as though it belongs to others and is not your own. That's a 100 percent obvious contradiction. Yet very few people notice it or speak out about it or complain about it.