From: oldwifetale@yahoo.com   
      
   On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 2:39:17 AM UTC-7, joshb wrote:   
   > Hello Relatives,   
   >   
   > If I may propose a way to live to the white man here, because   
   > they nor anybody else listens to me, and they don't listen to   
   > the indians either, but I had hoped that perhaps they would listen   
   > to us together. There are some non-indians who do listen to the   
   > indians, but it seems to me that the message is perhaps not   
   > reaching them because they cannot make a connection between   
   > themselves and how they live now. The indians are taken as one   
   > subject, while politics, economics and war in their own society   
   > is taken as something else. Example: "We should not sell the   
   > Earth." A white man might even print that on a tile if he is   
   > friendly, and think it a wonderful saying. However my guess is   
   > that most of them will not considder this to be a serious part   
   > of an economic structure, and that they should campaign in their   
   > political system for a prohibition on the sale of the Earth.   
   > They do not make the connection, they do not see the seriousness,   
   > they do not relate it to themselves in a serious way.   
   >   
   > Then there is another problem: white man culture is large scale   
   > and therefore technically complex. Iron ore from the mountains,   
   > plus oil from thousands of kilometers away, and so on. This   
   > complexity overwhelms people, and to stand against this almost   
   > a towering monster, to say "The Earth cannot be sold and we must   
   > pass a law that will prohibit the selling of soil," it becomes   
   > a rope that is a little bit too small to catch the monster, too   
   > small and simple. The immediate reaction from other whites is   
   > going to be "that will never work," and "how could that ever be   
   > done ?!", and then you have to show that in detail or you would   
   > be ignored.   
   >   
   > At the same time it is true that the indians are not so simple,   
   > and they have many laws that can take care of this, from all   
   > kinds of tribes; and it will probably not take much to create   
   > new laws with the help of the indians. Somehow the message is   
   > not getting through. Probably in coming years (maximum decades   
   > I suspect) the world will be destroyed, because they didn't want   
   > to listen and improve themselves. That will be the best time to   
   > get through, thus something must be lined up for them that is   
   > as it where a hand that reaches to them when they are falling   
   > down.   
   >   
   > This is what I came up with:   
   > Power must be distributed to all people as the essential principle   
   > behind the law. This is of course nothing new, but it leads to   
   > logical conclusions about land, company ownership, money, and the   
   > Government. One of the most important things to achieve is to   
   > give people the power to escape poverty, and to be a free people   
   > that are not oppressed by anyone. That was the aim behind it all,   
   > to stop the poverty and the oppression. For that power must be   
   > distributed to all.   
   >   
   > ~ Society will always have private and public issues to solve.   
   >   Private issues people do themselves, but for public issues they   
   >   need to come together. The Government is that coming together,   
   >   it is the commission of the people that carries out some public   
   >   jobs given to them. They are not the power, they are only servants   
   >   with a job to do. The problem with modern "democracy" is that liars   
   >   win the game. I belief this is caused in part by nobody knowing   
   >   anyone. Knowing someone means that this someone also knows you, or   
   >   it is only a fantasy. His fans may think they know Elvis Presley,   
   >   but isn't it so that only those that Elvis Presley himself knew   
   >   (such as his mother and friends) are the ones who really did know   
   >   Elvis ? This must be brought into the election system as a reality:   
   >   the electing person (voter) does not just know who he votes for,   
   >   but the ones he can vote for also know him.   
   >   
   >   Having thought long about the numbers and scale of society, it seems   
   >   that the number 50 might be a good one: 50 persons elect one spokes-   
   >   person for themselves. Going lower to 30 is also quite reasonable.   
   >   But 50 provides more stability, because it is a slower group then 30.   
   >   Groups of 50 will harmonize more, then groups of 30, because the   
   >   smaller the groups the more their final opinions diverge. Larger groups   
   >   are also harder to maintain and set up, making them more careful in   
   >   some ways.   
   >   
   >   These spokespersons will then form councils of 50 again, to form   
   >   local councils which are to carry out the public job given to them.   
   >   Both councils and these voting-circles can again separate themselves   
   >   into 5 or 10 smaller circles, to debate things and carry their   
   >   conclusions to the other circles. This reduces the chances of demagoguery,   
   >   and gives everyone a chance to talk in a more human way; with less   
   >   fear of addressing an entire crowd. That also helps reduce the power of   
   >   the liars.   
   >   
   >   Because society is so large scale, there are also councils needed   
   >   over larger areas then just 50 spokespersons for each 50 persons   
   >   (2 500 people). This works by making the spokespersons council larger,   
   >   even up to thousands or tens of thousands. All these spokespersosn   
   >   together form a great council, and all the spokespersons in the entire   
   >   Nation form the largest area Council that exists for those people.   
   >   There cannot be larger councils still that cross borders over to other   
   >   Nations or even Continents - because that is beyond human capability.   
   >   The Nations should relate to each other as free brothers, and not   
   >   place above themselves yet higher councils; because these will have   
   >   impossible tasks and the distance to the people will become too great.   
   >   I think the size of a nation should not exceed 30 million, with 5   
   >   million people probably an optimum size, and 1 million or less also   
   >   being good sizes. (This seems to be completely lost on the white man.)   
   >   
   >   These large spokesperson councils are impractical because you cannot   
   >   debate with hundreds of people (before I forget, the sub-circle system   
   >   is a direct copy of the Mohawk law, the Great Law of Peace). So these   
   >   large spokesperson councils over a large village, a city or a province,   
   >   or just a region for which it seemed good to have a special unified   
   >   council: they separate into 50 sectors. Each sector elects one of   
   >   them to be the practical council. You see how this way both a city   
   >   council, and the national council, are formed on the same level and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)