I believe that people are still supporting the government willingly. I see no indication of true revolt, just many groups fighting over who should have the controlling power within the government. With over 5,000 years of conditioning and selective breeding (people born with the tendency to revolt have been continually culled in mass through execution, war, and genocide), I believe it's going to take centuries of peaceful revolt and the creation and growth of sanctuary communities before the threshold reaches a critical mass.
I think more so than at any other time, people view the State as a protective matriarchal entity that regulates nature, culture, and commerce to guarantee the safety of it's citizens. They have a dependent relationship with their new mother and look to all of her institutions for truth, guidance, and affirmation. This is why both the far right and far left have a visibly unhealthy desire for the institutions to mirror their world view. I see no major group or movement questioning the very legitimacy of the government itself. The debate is centered around the "role" of government and not if it should exist in the first place.
With that said, I do believe the government and it's corporate plutocracy are engaging in the usual efforts of culling the rebels, and publicly shaming those who do not believe in its authority or fear it. These measures are to keep the prospect of a critical mass from ever blooming. They delegate their military, institutions, military, police, and media to put out the fires that are seem to be spreading, but they do not see it as a threat yet. We are all too dependent on their infrastructure, amenities, and currencies to create a real threat. Until it can no longer provide these for its citizens or we form models for sanctuary communities that are independent from these, I believe the legitimacy of government will continue to go unthreatened.
Welcome to the debate :) This is an excellent post, not many are aware of the planned removal of Alpha males in society through war. i believe Stefan Molyneux did an excellent interview on this with Mike Cernovich. However i do hope that you are wrong and it is not centuries before we can achieve freedom from government. i have to believe i can help achieve freedom from tyrannical government interference for the sake of my children and their children in the future.
Regarding your belief that they are taking measures to cull and keep us under control, preventing us from forming groups etc, i know this to be true for a fact, and they do see us as a threat and will positively target individuals if they start to get a following or form groups. With decentralisation using block-chain technology, we may finally have the ability to have roots that cannot be pulled up. Up-vote from me and the wife. i wish you all the best :)
Thank you for your response and upvote. I’m not keen on the term “Alpha male” as it implies the misconception that human hiarchies are similar to wolves or lobsters. They are not, the great apes and humans have much more complex hiarchies that are more political in nature than physical or dominating. I believe masculinity and femininity need to be balanced. As of now we have the caricaturization of the masculine, and commodification of the feminine. Neither are accurate portrayals of their true essence or power. Masculinity and feminity are also not entirely gender exclusive, though they most often manifest as such, there are exceptions.
I do think it will take a few centuries before we can see the dissolution of government, primarily because there aren’t enough people with the genetics to operate outside of its structure. Theoretically it takes a lot less time for an organism that has been domesticated to return to its wild state, than it does to domesticate it. So a few centuries seems relatively quick compared to the thousands of years it took for humans to move from self governing small tribes to the massive states we operate within now. Secondly, if the change happens to fast it will leave room for fascists and dictators to take power through manipulating the scared niave people. I believe having working models of what a society without government looks like is the first step. Until we have these models in existence, it’s all just empty chatter.
I totally agree with the premise that we have been domesticated by the government and though the tools and methods used to accomplish this were more psychological they still qualify as violent and forceful. Just some of the institutions that they have infiltrated or commandeered to ensure their control include education, medical, religous, entertainment, economic, agricultural, and family.
As proof of just how far this domestication has progressed, my daughter who works with teens at her church said that almost all of the graduates future plans included living off the government in some shape or form. It was just a given.
I have seen some progress in developing decentralized and self sustaining models that free us from this tyranny but we still have a long way to go. Steem-it seems like a good base of operations.
I agree. Well said.
I've not see or ever heard of anybody who described the current state as a 'protective matriarchal entity'. I don't see it as being protective, nurturing or exhibiting any matriarchal characteristics. I'm interested how you came to that description.
Good question. What I intended to convey with that statement was that our expectations are that of such. Not that people believe the state to behave in that manner, but they desire it to. And that's what's driving a lot of the political discussion. People go to the grocery stores and feel safe buying anything there, not because they trust the corporations and farmers, but because they trust the USDA and FDA to be the good mother and be sure her children can only eat what is best and safe for them. While I do believe that all should have access to healthcare, we expect the government to behave like a good mother and care for us when we are sick. We expect our government to protect us from hurtful words, people, and ideas like our mother would censor the world for her young children.
An antidotal example of this is the Tide Pods fiasco, where Chuck Schumer is now calling for a ban on colorful packaging of the Tide Pods because they look "candy." This is assuming a matriarchal role. I think "hillicopter mom" is a more appropriate analogy on how the government behaves in these manners.
Ahhhhh, yes. Okay. I see your point now. The good old nanny state. Thank you for the clarification.