View Single Post
Old 04-09-2005, 09:29 AM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 899
Default Self-Sufficiency vs. Comfort

I think self-sufficiency can be achieved: it's got to do with how comfortable you want your life to be. How much comfort are you willing to sacrifice to be self-sufficient?

OC wrote:
However my my point still remains you are not independent or immune from reality except maybe in cc or your head.
What do you mean by "reality"?

As far as I'm concerned, what is generally accepted as reality seems to me more and more like an illusion.

If you mean the reality of Statist coercion and threats to individual freedom like taxes and "welfare systems" and "democratic human rights" it really all depends on how much comfort you've let yourself be bribed with.

To me that's the catch. People have been bought off by the Elite with a comfortable life, clothes, luxuries of all kind we take for granted, events of all kinds, entertainment etc.

Most people can't imagine a life without TV. I've decided to give up TV half-a-year ago and I don't intend to EVER go back. This is an illustration on a miniscule scale of what it would take to become independent and self-sufficient. The State claims that you wouldn't be able to live your life if the State didn't provide you with for example infrastructure. Really? Does my life REALLY depend on infrastructure? Would I REALLY stop breathing if I didn't have a bus to ride, or an asphalted road to walk on?

We have become SOFT; we are no longer using or bodies to the full. WE have become COMFORTABLE. If we are willing to give up our comfort the State has nothing left to offer. If we give up the material things the State produces for our leasure and distraction we at present can't live without, we are suddenly free from manipulation and coercion. How could the State force an individual to do anything if that individual didn't want anything the State had to offer in return?

In its most desperate attempt at fooling us we need the State, it claims that we are threatened by "global terrorism" and that the State can protect us from that "global terrorism".

If I had ANY choice in the matter I'd say "don't protect me from "global terrorism" you, the State, created as an excuse to claim you are necessary."

I agree with both TB and Ahmad that we need to go back to smaller communities, like villages, where everyone know eachother and protect and help eachother.

Like I said to TB before though, the State would do everything in its power to destroy such a community because it would threaten the State's very excuse for existing.
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote