I also see that I still have some conditioning that I have to work through. I was speaking mainly about the in-person group which has decided to use Formal Consensus to form and learn to use, when I said “we need to have a soul connection first”
I am sure that in a way, there is a way to falsely use Formal Consensus in a dictatorial way, and so "we" will have to be vigalent about that. I am not a proponent for saying how "everyone" should talk and what "everyone" should say.
I even believe that Aldus Huxley, when he wrote Brave New World, did not really believe that he was being a fascist – he really thought that he had the intellectual right to lay out how people could best live in a Utopian society. I believe this because I have had the same point of view myself in the past – “if only everyone would do as I think they should…” I had no idea that that is Fascism.
And yet I was one of the ones who told Glenn that his Jew comment was inappropriate, so I see I have a double standard, which I accused Michelle C of when she didn’t ban Brian for making a child-trafficking comment in marketplace after I had gotten booted off of there.
I could see both sides of Mary's Adrenachrome joke post they other day. I posted my "laugh" emoji under it because I got the joke, but then another person and I had a conversation about it and I could see their point of view as well. That making a joke about extracting tortured children’s Cortisol to be used as a “drug” by the power el-ite is a super crass violation of the lost Law of Care, the 8th Principle of Natural Law – which the dark luciferian reptilian el-ites have been trying to pound out of us to get us to do their will for millennia. As long as my heart-chakra is closed then I can perform psychopathic acts against all sentient beings to extract their resources.
Yes I get it. I did a deep dive down that rabbit hole in 2015-2017 when I studied under Mark Passio – and as for child-trafficking – I am personally still completely damaged by my “up-bringing” in a house of violence – so what is there to joke about? Would I want people joking about my twisted life that has resulted?
I guess I would like to get free enough so that I can joke about it, and in addition – once Freedom of Speech has been crushed in a society, humor becomes the way we communicate about serious matters. That’s what my family uses – humorous sarcasm. Sarcasm – from the Latin which means to “tear flesh” – not good.1
In a free society, I have the inalienable right to freely express myself - however - like one of my spiritual advisors once said to me "I have the right to swing my arm as far as I want until it comes into contact with your nose." -
This is where Formal Consensus states in Impediments to Consensus that "Outside Hierarchical Structures" can be an impediment. I see that “we” as a group, in person, are going to have to work through these understandings of our individual and group autonomy.
We, as a society, have been conditioned to believe that everyone should behave how we each individually think they should. We have been conditioned to believe that "they" out there should do what "we" in here think "they" should - but that is fascism.
Under Natural Law, I rule my inner monarchy. If I don't like what someone said, or if I have a question for someone about what they said, i should talk to that person privately about that to gain clarification.
Taking Glenn posting this comment in Health and Wellness that so-and-so's action was such because he was Jewish, I felt dehumanized. However, I did not start a private conversation with Glenn about it. Instead, I joined in the public throng against the comment and he got banned.
Insert – a different way to reprimand people?
If Glenn had said "in my opinion, it's a Jew thing" would that have been more palatable to me? Is not Glenn free to have his point of view and to express it in a free society- and is it then not up to me to do my own inner work to not have his words affect me?
Was I not acting in the My Freedom Movement to demand that he curtail his point of view when I don't want to have to say "in my opinion, the group needs to have a soul-connection"?
As I said, I don't think there is aa simple answer. I formed what I called a "leaderless" group for Wednesday but in fact I am the temporary "leader" of the group - because I started it and I have an agenda for it. I have a couple people I am working with to structure it.
The group accepted the book Formal Consensus for how to learn decision-making. Therefore that Book is the Authority for the group, however it has been determined that "we" need to find a soul connection and create community before we can say honestly that "we" have the principles in place to even use Formal Consensus.
As a result, I have been approached by others who have "ways" to "do" the Wednesday night group so that we can get to that point of Trust, Respect, Non-Violence, Cooperation, etc (p.22-26). I also have a “way” to do that as well based on my over 20 years working in a group that uses Spiritual Principles to govern it’s group process.
So, I was wrong – it’s not a leaderless group. At some point, I look forward to when all of the people in the group are leaders – but right now I am the “leader” I guess. I don’t like to say that because I don’t view myself as a “leader” perse.
I view myself as the container – and already in the first group, I encountered a few power struggles which were subtle – and I am sure there will be more. I hope that we are committed to working through those struggles and I am sure that insodoing we will relearn what is deep down within every one of us – these Moral truths of Natural Law: To Do Unto Others As We Would Have Others Do Unto Us. But I have “feet-of-clay” myself and I am going to make mistakes, especially as “the leader” – and I will be saying “I apologize” often, I am sure.
With me as the “leader”, the Creator is the ultimate authority – because we said a prayer at the beginning of the group – and that is from Whom all Principles are born.
Regarding the Wednesday night group – I feel that “we” have to have a soul-connection before we can begin learning Formal Consensus.
Ultimately, I do not want to have an online group where we have a bunch of Laws in place about how “we” should all phrase our statements. If I rule my inner monarchy, it is up to me to learn how to communicate in a group – online chat so that my message is understood. In the future, I will, if I am offended by someone’s comment, try to contact them individually to discuss it with them. I am not sure I will succeed at this as I am getting a dopamine dump that I am addicted to when I post a comment – but I can work on that.
It is not my opinion that the group needs to have a soul connection before we are going to be able to make decisions. That is the “opinion” of M. Scott Peck in his book A Different Drum and of CT Butler in his book “On Conflict and Consensus”. I am aligning my “opinion” with their opinion.
The reason why I am nitpicking this to death is because under Natural Law there are no authorities other than The Creator and The Laws – so – how can we have human “leaders” – ?? well there are people who have certain expertise in the community who “we” want to learn what they know – so we give them temporary “authority” to teach us what they know.
But then, it is up to those “leaders” to step back – and using my Rule over my Inner Monarchy – if my ego liked being the Leader – once I have to step back I have to be doing self-reflection techniques so that I can step back without being a crybaby about it or worse – where I don’t step back and still try to be the Ruler – which causes the group to suffocate under Tyranny.
I am making a sacred contract with you that I am only the temporary leader until we get the soul-connection – and then we all start standing in our leadership rolls using formal consensus.
“We” have to have a real community first before “we” are going to be able to make decisions that support a free society. In the meantime, we can move to using Toby’s forum where there will be more freedom to choose what we read or don’t read. And “we” can lay down some “conditions” of participation – which “we” can decide to adjust if they prove to be fascistic in the long run.
In the meantime, “people” will have to govern themselves using manners, I guess the way our great grand-parents did.