Molecular Change

2008-12-14 08:15:00

LWK writes:

"There seems to be an evolutionary process in the creation, growth, and eventual decay of systems and societies. The Roman Republic followed by the Roman Empire is one well known example. Once the rot sets in it is pretty hard to turn a system around. Can you give me even one example from history of a society that has had the rot set in as it has in America being turned around, or reformed?

"Personally none come to mind for me. History would seem to indicate that it is a basic principle that if you want to truly institute radical reform for the good then you have to leave the rot behind and start anew. This is principle that you have in fact stated in 'The Gathering of Lights.' This principle appears to be true for the light, but not for the dark which thrives on decay on rot."

JJ:

Every civilization and kingdom has had its ups and downs. Without The Lights working to make things better there would have been no ups and history would be wrought with much more pain than we have had.

Larry W. gave a good example citing the Civil War. We had reached a point of tension where it looked like the experiment in Democracy had failed and America was going to collapse. Most of Europe expected a collapse. Instead, we fought to save the Union and end slavery and the forces of evolution prevailed. The nation became a more civil place to live. Even Congress became more civil. Before the war representatives sometimes attacked each other physically or challenged each other to duels to the death.

In the Roman Empire after a rule of some of the worst tyrants in history such as Caligula, Nero and Domitian, it entered into a period of positive change through five much improved emperors who were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. Their reigns lasted between 96 to 180 AD.

Some influences came from the bottom up, but in that day those at the top had to cooperate for improvements in government to be made.

We have a tremendous advantage in our day. The law, as we now have it, still allows change to be made from the grassroots level. This is an advantage that the Romans did not have.

Rome lasted around a thousand years and we are only 232 years old. There still exists the possibility of turning the country around. It would be easiest if we had a great leader like Abraham Lincoln, but barring that, the people are our greatest hope. A situation must be created where the common people believe in themselves and assume more power, for they have more common sense than the uncommon sense of our leaders.

I believe it was William F. Buckley who said he would rather be governed by random names picked from the Boston phone book than by the Congress of his day. There's a lot of truth in that observation.

Does my desire to save my country negate the need for The Gathering?

No.

The deterioration of a country reveals the need for a Gathering, and a Gathering is forced if there is a complete collapse. Of course, in a collapse you could have a gathering of good or bad guys who seek to create the new order.

If a government becomes too restrictive then the only solution for the Lights is to gather in a location out of the country.

But if a reasonable amount of freedom remains The Gathering can take place within the country. This would cause less hardship and is an important reason to work to turn the country around.

Larry W. asked for my advice in implementing Molecular Politics. He talked about gathering seven people and concentrating on 14 issues. Nothing wrong with the 7 people but the 14 issues is a problem. A candidate running on the Molecular platform has only one issue which is:

WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT!

This will have a very powerful appeal. As soon as you start talking about issues the public will sense which side you favor on them and half will turn against you right off.

Obama illustrated the power of delivering a central message and avoiding the issues. His problem now is that he will have to make decisions based on issues which will anger many people who imagined he thought otherwise.

On the other hand, the Molecular candidate can honestly avoid the issues because he does not vote on what he believes, but what the people believe. This is powerful because most people believe the majority is not represented well.

Imagine the Molecular candidate in a debate and he is asked: What is your position on abortion?

He will answer:

"It matters not what my position is, I will vote on what the people want, not what I want."

When asked: What's your position on the budget?

He will answer:

"It matters not what my position is, I will vote on what the people want, not what I want."

When the people hear this over and over they will register the plan and get excited over it.

If I were you and wanted to be the first Molecular candidate I would seek office the established way through one of the major parties. I would seek out some top political people and explain the plan and seek their backing in raising funds. If you do not have money and power at present it would be an uphill battle.

It would be a huge step forward if my book introducing this was well received and the principle gets time on the major talk shows.

The next step is to create the Committee for Representation. After this is established we then approach perspective candidates to run on the Molecular platform.