Manuel Rápalo discusses the announcement by the cities of Seattle and Minneapolis to supplant Columbus Day with Indigenous People's Day in order to bring awareness to the boarder history and current plight of Native Americans.
Why is it that we cannot travel freely and live where we choose upon this earth while a Canadian goose can do so without passports, papers and permission from the government?
There's a lot of talk regarding national borders, especially here in the United States where it is quite common to hear people discussing how "illegal immigrants" are undermining the fabric of our society, stealing our jobs, reaping benefits they don't deserve and raising all sorts of havoc.
I find myself wondering why it is that so many human beings feel that other human beings should be confined to geographic locations designated by borders that exist only in our imaginations. How is it that we are not allowed to travel freely and live where we choose upon the Earth of which we were born, yet a Canadian goose can do so without passports, papers and permission from the pornographic pedophiles of the Transportation Security Administration?
I think many people that support the division — or perhaps confinement would be a better word — of certain cultural elements of the human race do so not because they have thought about such things them selves, but because they have been infused with this mindset by governments and the media. It's something many simply take for granted; you need a passport to travel here, papers to work there and pink form BS-9999-A to visit that country because it's on some government invented blacklist and that's just the way it is. Without borders the planet would erupt in chaos, right? I think there are some very important questions that are being overlooked regarding borders however, as well as much broader issues.
The more curious among us might wonder who it is that benefits from restricting free travel? Borders are founded and enforced by governments, not populations. Without them governments would not be able to control those that reside within their established territories and i think regional governments might ultimately disappear as a result, along with a lot of the money they extort through taxation and penalties from those under their control. Perhaps the entire monetary system that has enslaved the people of every "developed" nation on the planet would also collapse without borders. And if the monetary system collapsed, so would Wall Street, Ponzi schemes, the IRS, the CIA, the NSA, the U.N., the CFR, state militaries, and, yes, even the Bilderberg Club and many of the other secret societies.
Illegal immigrants are ultimately human beings which, like all of us, were born of this Earth; this one, tiny, incredibly beautiful planet we all share. I think it is quite ironic that some of us, especially in the U.S. apparently, attempt to somehow legitimize the term "illegal immigrant", in the face of the fact that the only people that reside here that aren't immigrants are native Americans, of which there would be a lot more of today hadn't we "Americans" slaughtered around 80-90% of them. And what does one have to do to become an "illegal immigrant"? One has to cross an imaginary line and, presto, they can now be arrested, locked in a cage and sent back to where they didn't want to be in the first place.
OK, so tomorrow it is announced to the world that all national borders will become defunct at 12 midnight, UTC time (FOX News reports that Iran is to blame and Israel calls the whole thing anti-Semitic and begins purchasing massive quantities of bricks and mortar). Now what? Chaos? Murder? War? Do people from one former country suddenly pull up stakes and move elsewhere?
In September of 2009, the town of Portishead, England (pop. 22,000) conducted an experiment in which they turned off the traffic lights on a congested roadway for nearly a month. Many people thought the idea was simply ludicrous and articles were written condemning the experiment even before it commenced. The results were quite different than what many prophesied however; people were generally courteous and began to pay attention to each other instead of the traffic lights and they quickly adapted to the situation. Congestion was greatly reduced as well as the time spent traveling through the area. Petty arguments over traffic congestion stopped and apparently there were no accidents at all during the test.
"A new hierarchy emerges with vulnerable road users at the top. Pedestrians in the shared space scenario, when there are no lights to dictate behavior, are seen as fellow road users rather than obstacles in the way of the next light."
So let's take a stab at wrapping my non-original concept of an Earth without government borders around the no traffic lights experiment…
I think the above quote is very interesting and revealing because it tells us that, without the lights, pedestrians were now seen more as equals rather than "lower class" obstacles by their mechanized wielding counterparts. The traffic lights (the borders) were removed and thus the "class division" between the vehicle operators and the pedestrians was also removed, at least to some degree. People seemed to have gotten along better and found that a way of life, if you will, that they might have never thought feasible was in fact not only feasible, but substantially improved without the government dictating behavior through a binary system of traffic lights, telling everyone when it's OK to do something and when it is not, as though it were utterly inconceivable that people could figure this out on their own.
UNGRIP is one of my favorite documentary films which explores in great detail what it means to be a free, responsible, sovereign human being with as little reliance on "the system" as possible:
Of course there is much more to consider when one contemplates what society might look like without borders and since i'm no expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination, it would be somewhere between incredibly difficult and bloody impossible for me to paint any kind of an accurate picture. There are however a number of benefits that come to mind, perhaps the most important of which is that the size, power and intrusiveness of government would be greatly reduced. There would also be a cascade of what many of us agree would be hugely positive changes, including the dissolution of many local and international government entities and assets such as the U.N., NATO, intelligence communities, militaries, nuclear weapons and other arms, and a whopping pile of others. Language barriers might eventually dissolve and one would be free to travel and live where they choose instead of where a government allows. And of course there would be no wars fought over imaginary lines. Speaking of war, does one ever wonder what the true purpose of government sponsored war really is? Here are some interesting quotations from a document titled, REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN: ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE:
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable internal political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its "legitimacy," or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, or reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer.
The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. […] On a day- to-day basis, it is represented by the institution of police, armed organizations charged expressly with dealing with "internal enemies" in a military manner. Like the conventional "external" military, the police are also substantially exempt from many civilian legal restraints on their social behavior. In some countries, the artificial distinction between police and other military forces does not exist. On the long-term basis, a government's emergency war powers — inherent in the structure of even the most libertarian of nations — define the most significant aspect of the relation between state and citizen.
By now some of you might be thinking that i'm aligned with "them". You know, that fascist/communist/elitist self-serving scum that has infected the Earth like a plague, sucking the life-force out of us and promoting their New World Order ideology, complete with a one-world government and universal religion … and no traditional borders. Except i'm not. Their idea of a New World Order is based on a top-down control system through fear and enslavement while the concept i am promoting is based on a bottom-up co-op with freedom, harmony and education at its core. It is entirely free of bankers and traditional monetary systems. Personally i think Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco got it right…
I watch many news feeds each day, one of them being Activist Post, and i am very aware of what is going on in the world at this time. Although i haven't published any hard political news here, i used to spend many hours each day reading news feeds and maintaining a website where i posted and commented on what i thought were the most important news items of the day.
I feel like the world is literally burning with rage, discontent, war, death and change, and, unlike a year or so ago, i'm no longer exactly sure what to make of it all. I've learned that the truth in a political and historical sense is most often 180 degrees off from the version we are told. As a researcher, this makes the task of filtering out the truth from the garbage a very difficult one since there is so much disinformation and misinformation mixed in. Who do you trust? Personally, and on a larger scale than specific names and dates, i think there is a huge amount of truth to be found in the writings of ancient and indigenous peoples. In this regard i have the highest respect for the Hopi who are prolific profits and whose prophecies have shown to be accurate.
Activist Post published a short article today titled The Occupy Movement & The Hopi and i found myself reading through it a couple of times, very carefully, because it really resonates with me and contains what i feel is a vital piece of information from the Hopi, for whom there is no question of trust in my mind.
The Hopi quote was not new to me, but what followed it was. First though, here is one of the many things the Hopi have said regarding this time:
You have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour. Now you must go back and tell the people that this is the Hour. And there are things to be considered:
Where are you living?
What are you doing?
What are your relationships?
Are you in right relation?
Where is your water?
Know your garden.
It is time to speak your Truth.
Create your community.
Be good to each other.
And do not look outside yourself for the leader.
This could be a good time!
There is a river flowing now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold on to the shore. They will feel they are being torn apart, and they will suffer greatly.
Know the river has its destination. The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of The river, keep our eyes open, and our heads above the water. See who is in there with you and celebrate.
At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally. Least of all, ourselves. For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt. The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!
Banish the word struggle from your attitude and your vocabulary.
All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
Following this quote is some information in the The Occupy Movement & The Hopi article which completely took me by surprise however. I am well aware of the fact that crime, at least in the U.S., is declining, though the main stream media would like us to believe the opposite is true. What i didn't know, and which seems to fly in the face of what i read every day, is that crime, including deaths from war, are declining on a global basis. Here is a quote:
The number of people killed in battle — calculated per 100,000 population — has dropped by 1,000-fold over the centuries as civilizations evolved. Before there were organized countries, battles killed on average more than 500 out of every 100,000 people. In 19th century France, it was 70. In the 20th century with two world wars and a few genocides, it was 60. Now battlefield deaths are down to three-tenths of a person per 100,000.
— The rate of genocide deaths per world population was 1,400 times higher in 1942 than in 2008.
— There were fewer than 20 democracies in 1946. Now there are close to 100. Meanwhile, the number of authoritarian countries has dropped from a high of almost 90 in 1976 to about 25 now.
It would be interesting to research this deeper, and i do not like insinuation that democracy = peace. A lot of people here in the U.S. believe that we live in [under] a democracy when, in fact, the founding fathers knew that a democracy was tantamount to tyranny, which is why we were given a republic — not a democracy. The best description i have read comparing the two is something like this: A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A republic is two wolves and a sheep with a gun voting on what's for dinner. Of course all that has changed over the years and we no longer have a republic or a democracy. We have fascism, socialism and communism instead, as does much of the rest of the world.
Anyway, i think the article is an interesting read and i hope you will read it carefully. I think it has a very important and deep meaning.