Review of Sheena Alexandra’s talk “The EGO of an Anarchist”

I just listened to Sheena Alexandra’s video of the above title and I must say I was thoroughly engaged. Sheena has a great persona on the screen, her inner sun shines constantly. I learn many things from her. I think that’s how it is amongst truth seekers, we learn from each other. We just keep on learning and growing and this creates a win/win/win situation — win for her, win for me and win for all of us because it changes the terrain for everyone.

Sheena covered some pretty deep areas and I want to do it justice by answering those that came to my attention. I do this because I feel compelled to express my own true feelings, my own truth and to make dissecting the truth a new sport. And hopefully spur another renaissance.

No time like the present as we fluctuate between entropy and synergy, at the fulcrum of two worlds — one that brings a continuation of our supremacy/inferiority thinking which foments the slave status, vs one that launches us into a new era of sovereignty thinking.

So here is my commentary to Sheena’s inspiring talk…

At 2 mins:

Yes the world we see is inside of our minds not “out there”. It is the terrain our minds create and that determines our perspectives and consequently our behavior. Currently we traverse the terrain where we defer to a third party and usually one who isn’t involved in the conflict themselves, an outsider. This impartiality is thought to be constructive however being uninvolved also means they have no “skin in the game” and so can offer advice that may be too hard or irrelevant. What sovereignty calls us to do is to solve disputes for ourselves, for the people involved in it. Isn’t it funny that we have no skills to do this? That we always go running to a third party? This only makes us less able to solve problems ourselves between each other. It alienates everyone involved and puts the mediator in a position of “power-over”. We don’t get the practice when we seek out a third party. This we do in many things in this paradigm. We still can choose to have mediators however that’s the first and usually the only option we seek. This occurs because the terrain of thinking tells us that we are not capable. So this is the “home base thought” that we stand in. I call this the third party syndrome and it is endemic in societies that don’t practice anarchy but practice “power-over”. When we choose to solve things ourselves, with self and the party or parties involved, we create the environment to continually grow, to continually reinforce our confidence in ourselves that we can handle it. True confidence in oneself comes from doing things, failing and then succeeding, failing and then solving. We never “arrive” while we are alive. If we live a full life we will be “failing and solving” throughout our days. It’s part of life but we put a bad light on the word “fail”. We always fail until we succeed, we just have to keep “failing” until we succeed! The concept of failing is brought about by ego, by the supremacy/inferiority mindset we are immersed in, the bullying paradigm you speak of Sheena.

So we need to get better at handling our problems ourselves between the people that have skin in the game, the people who are involved, not people who have nothing to do with us, who come in from “outside” our circle, because one thing is for sure — we are each unique. And so we’ll never find another one with exactly the same outlook as us. There will be places where anarchists disagree. For example, the activists I deal with keep talking about “god” and gosh dammit I reel inside when I hear that word. It’s offensive to me, thoroughly offensive. I think “oh shit - are we going to go through all this trouble of getting through this era, with all the trauma and barbarism and apathy that we’ve been through for generations, plus all the suffering, while people continue to practice the third party syndrome, and bring it forward again into the new epoch? If so, we will not be fully free, we will always have this third party over our heads. This syndrome will lead us back to where we are today, it will have rendered all this hard work we’re doing, absolutely wasted. This should be discussed calmly and rationally, so that we note that the belief in god is superstition. We need to work with real things not myths. Though we don’t have much pure information because we’ve been kept in the dark for so long, we need to cleanse ourselves of these old-fashioned narratives that no longer make any sense and induce more supremacy/inferiority scenarios. We need new narratives to create new thought forms to get us used to living in the world we choose, not the one that was inserted into our spirit. Using another term besides their narratives takes us out of their word magick.

When we trip and use the narratives of the outgoing world, we need to mark the spots where it happens. They are like pitfalls we need to be alerted to. This will definitely happen in various degrees as the veils are lifted and we start seeing the true reality rather than the illusions they’ve spun us into. Lifting the veils will change everything our thoughts and ideas are built on, it will be like all the marbles in the jar shifting when one is taken out.

The entire terrain will shift when we point out the poppycock we’ve been conditioned to, when truth and integrity rise up again as it has to if we are to survive this wave, and go on to thrive in the golden age we look forward to.

4.18 mins:

Anarchy is our answer — yes. Honor our own free will, beautifully said.

9.01 mins

Re the HBO series The Anarchist. They are doing it again to us — controlling the opposition, because they know more people are looking to become anarchists. I wonder where they’ll take this but I don’t want to watch the Hoollyworld mind control us with their subliminal perspectives. If we’re smart we’ll know to find out about it through the grapevine. Because watching hoollyworld movies is like opening a portal to their world. They feed off our attention. Attention is currency.

10 mins:

Yes we bully each other we anarchists by shutting someone down, by refusing to tackle a subject that makes people feel uncomfortable. Tempers can flare but definitely as you said Sheena, as long as you always go back. And the sooner we go back to the conversation, the sooner to the occurrence we return, the better we’ll learn to compose ourselves and return to reason and rationality, the healthier we will be and our culture will be. No models exist yet, we have to demonstrate our imagination by practicing it together. We will err, but we will also progress.

11.54 mins:

You’re right we definitely have to forget about the judiciary system because yes, it is part of the plot . However, dispute resolution is best done not by a third party but by the participants in the dispute themselves. We can only learn if we work on it ourselves, we can’t keep crying to mommy. We don’t need a third party at all if we had the infrastructure that supported sovereign standards. Growing up means we work it out with the other equals who are engaged in conflict with us. To go to a third party means we still pass authority over to someone else. We may wish to call in people who have skin in the game — people who know us or are considered wise in our community, but we need to leave this for the very few instances where there is an impasse.

13. 22 mins:

All disputes can be handled by the Egalitarian Proposal System. This would simply be handled on a website, that was customized to publish proposals that anyone could make, as well as allow anyone to vote on other’s proposals. So in the EPS, people in a dispute would make their individual case — and state their proposal for what they want to happen. Each party gets to do this and if they make their case satisfactory enough to appeal to a vast majority (of a quorum), their proposal succeeds. This would require working together on clear cut agreements. This infrastructure desperately needs to be made mainstream. Third parties are not needed with the technology we have today. The idea of third parties is an old fashioned one, based before the digital age. The third parties in the case of the EPS are people who want to chime in and nothing is enforced. It is merely public opinion which itself is very powerful. We all will always have disputes, that’s as certain as change. We now only need the system to enable every sovereign voice their grievances and see what others think by discussing the subject as intensively as desired. This is how we create balance.

The Egalitarian Proposal System: https://deniseward.medium.com/the-egalitarian-proposal-system-is-designed-to-make-politics-courts-committees-boards-councils-de947fbca018

14 mins:

So true about us being the ones who broke free from the biggest bully in the playground — I love this imagery.

16 mins:

True — we cannot solve a crime by committing another crime ourselves — by jailing criminals. We need a clear-cut formula for criminal actions and look at them in a new light. We live in a predatory culture which responds to wrongdoing by jailing and fining. We need to see things from another perspective, but first we need to talk about it of course, it’s a big subject. If we lived in an open society, the openness would be like insurance which keeps criminals at bay automatically, because even criminals care about what people think of them. In a sovereign society, one’s reputation would be like their gold standard.

16.22 mins:

Putting someone in jail for years is not the answer. Killing someone isn’t the answer either — seems almost trite to say it. But this is what this current system espouses and carries out. And nobody seems to mind. Our friends and fellows willingly join killing gangs that use weapons upon peaceful people, notwithstanding that no amount of crime could justify such preposterous actions. Yet all this goes unsaid, uncared-for. People sign up and their families celebrate the killing by their sons and daughters of other people just like them.

18 mins:

Even though it is a good idea to do conflict resolution in the way you’re mentioning rather than go to the judicial system, it is still believing in selected third parties. It’s the selection part that leaves itself open to corruption. We need something that goes further, for those who truly want to unshackle from the third party syndrome and go all-out by forming an infrastructure for sovereigns. Really if we change the structure, everything will change. Building an interim system for those who can’t get their heads around being sovereign, still requires energy. Another system of selected individuals continues the third party paradigm which thus allows authority to remain as the ultimate judge.

19 mins:

“The court has been designed to harbor abusers”– that’s a great encapsulation. The people who do this to us are people just like us. They’re people we encounter in our everyday lives, they’re people we know, such as the supermarket checkout person, the town workers who give and collect fines, the nurses and doctors that jab with poisons, the neighbors who sneer at you for not wearing a face diaper. The people who threaten us are the people who believe they need to be governed and believe that people who eschew domination, need to be governed also regardless of their consent. Consent is not something they think about, thus the situation they get themselves into (taking jabs, etc) pose a very dangerous threat to everyone, unbeknownst to them. They do not realize when they’re being scammed, regardless of a glowing education. True sovereigns confer sovereignty to every other person. This is how we regain balance of the feminine and masculine energies — by everyone being recognized as sovereign. That will have the effect of uprooting everything we know because it is intrinsically based on consent of the individual.

Needing sheriffs is staying in the same mindset — of transferred responsibility — thinking that someone can resolve your issues for you or that you can resolve someone else’s issues. That’s not empowerment, that’s the same hand off. What we need to learn is how to resolve our issues with those that we are in dispute with. Doing so publicly is the safeguard against tyrants. If we do this we will be creating the right terrain that is conducive to anarchists (sovereigns). We merely need to build the infrastructure and it’s not hard today with the technology at our behest.

20.30 mins:

Yes let’s rename everything! Create new narratives and get off the brainwashing narratives. Courts will become obsolete because the Egalitarian Proposal System will be used which makes every individual the court.

23 mins:

It’s a good idea to get into the wedding industry — yes. These people need the same structure for a while. It can act as a stepping stone to becoming truly sovereign, which won’t need mediators because it will all be announced online at everyone’s discretion and leisure. Life is simple actually, especially now in the digital age. Our ancestors never had this luxury. We need to utilize it.

23.14 mins:

We need to change all the narratives including the word “business” and replace it with some other term. Perhaps “collaborative”, “co-op”, “association”, etc. Maybe a collaborative can differ from an association because the collaborative pays staff in Cannacoin as well as bank currency, whereas an association or PMA still deals with bank currency only. The ones that deal with Cannacoin would be building the new sovereign system whereas associations still build the slave system, only slightly less so. Still it may be a stepping stone some people prefer. We must however not let them hinder our progress and think we should remain at their pace — those of us who want to move faster. We only need to suggest options that satisfy as many as possible and have a system for doing so. We can learn to coexist because we are all different and viva for that.

23.21 mins:

What everyone needs is a platform to air their expressions. Baring it publicly calls out right and wrong action. That allows everyone to express their claims and views. The EPS system enables anyone to look up someone on the website or proposals that they are interested in. At first it will only be people who want to live in this most fairest of fair ways, the expeditionists, the explorers, the pioneers, the trailblazers. There isn’t a fairer way mentioned anywhere else. What could be fairer than you being able to have your say about anything you want, at any time you want? And others have the same conditions? The internet needs to be based on free speech, this is everyone’s life function, everyone’s birthright. Anyone can respond to any claim made against them. Anyone can look someone up and see what their history is. It will be as simple as looking up a profile and seeing what others said about them. Nothing will be removed fully unless users vote to have it happen. Anything removed would be transferred to a special page to get them off the main thread. That page can be accessed by anyone to see what was removed for ease of reading. We can’t let trolls spoil our beautiful world, but we also must ensure they can still speak because anyone can be called a troll — you could be too. We must not erase history because in the future the data will be used for our progress. Erasing history only fosters tyranny.

23.39 mins:

Yes trauma does happen when people break their agreements. We need to think about a fair process for when this happens. We need to be able to rely on each other, and rely on our word. It doesn’t mean we can’t change our mind, but if we break agreements, we must renegotiate the conditions. The one who broke the agreement would rightly be the one who needs to atone. That sounds harsh but it’s the only word I can think of. When we back out of agreements, we need to atone. If someone backed out of an agreement with you, how would you feel if they did nothing about it? We would feel good if those who backed out of our agreements, were willing to atone by negotiating something with you that suited you and made you feel dignified. It makes everybody feel good because it is based in integrity. And integrity is what builds trust.

25 mins:

Empathy — yes, extremely important and something that just “isn’t a thing” in this predatory culture. Empathy is like you said, Sheena, seeing it from someone else’s shoes, it doesn’t mean you abandon seeing it from your shoes though, or taking on someone else’s emotional state, although sometimes this will happen and it’s right for some occasions. But remember this is your journey, and this is my journey, this is every sovereign’s journey. Everyone really is sovereign but many don’t believe they are. And so they’re not if that’s their thinking. This is a great subject to discuss more deeply. What does empathy look like? What are some examples of it? How does it become enabling? Etc.

Love your boldness in taking them to court and that you won, but really loved the “fuck you fee”! Your humor is splendid Sheena!

27 mins:

So marriages and businesses in these common courts will still be using banker’s money? Still be paying taxes? This needs to be cleared.

27.45 mins:

You say we’re still ten years out from common law courts that actually work. There is a problem saying that in that it keeps us imagining that it can’t be sooner. Why can’t it be sooner? We can’t tell how fast this could happen. It could work next year, we don’t know. This is the beauty of our time right now, we are at the convergence of many outcomes that may seem impossible but the conditions are here to shift things as we create new pathways.

28 mins

Gods and courts are third party saviors. We need to empower ourselves and each other, not some outside entity. We have to really “grok” that the power comes from within ourselves not from outsiders. We can take their views into account but we must never give them jurisdiction over our decisions.

28.10 mins

“Putting other people into survival mode is not helping”. This suggests the underlying belief that others are responsible for my feelings and thus keeps us in slave mode. Healing is not ignoring ego it is questioning it. We all have it and we need to be open to criticism and recognize that we could be wrong about some things. We need to learn how to handle criticism in real time as we speak with others and reignite the art of conversing.

28.30 mins:

Would like to know about the dispute you had between anarchists because it would be helpful to recognize exactly what you mean so we can learn to discern. We live in a complex world with various perspectives. Finding truth is finding many perspectives. Was the vibration not aligned with sovereignty? Was someone being demanding or closed-minded?

29 mins:

Yes Sheena we need the truth tellers and we need all the knowledge in order to build humanity’s brain trust again. Thank you for the work you do and the sharing and collaboration you demonstrate every day. We are learning new ways of looking at things and challenging the established views. It takes courage to speak one’s truth and it can get messy, but we are still learning how to do it and we are not equipped with the language as yet and that has to be created anew as well.

29.40 mins:

With the internet we can keep wrongdoers in line by calling them out publicly on an open and free internet. We would have the infrastructure that enables everyone to air their grievances or anything else they wished to air. Anyone would be able to post anything about a person because nothing would be censored. There will be a way to filter out annoying comments (via consensus) by placing trolls on a side page but everything must go on the record so we can know the real truth and get accurate data so we can build our society on a stable and strong foundation. Truth develops — it’s rarely fixed. Living in this digital world means everything can be known immediately. This makes “law” and third parties obsolete, because they are too slow and cumbersome. We live in a dynamic culture now where things can change very rapidly. That’s what technology has bestowed, something our ancestors did not have the luxury of.

30.17 mins:

Wrongdoers would have to consciously want to make a better version of themselves but society needs a way to allow them the opportunity to improve and do better. That means that they should be given another chance but under guidelines that are mutually agreed upon and where everything agreed to is voluntary. Wouldn’t you like that for yourself in time when you “screw up”? If they breach their chance again, then it would make anyone who dealt with them know their level of integrity and they would do so at their own risk. It gives anyone the option to do business with them or not. This system would tend to ostracize wrongdoers from society and do so organically. However there also ought to be a way to return to society. Of course much of it depends on the circumstances. Things will be seen differently when the tables are turned and the terrain suddenly makes integrity the new “fashion”. Things will look very different when the truth of the current corruption is spilled for all to see. Those who stood for freedom, sovereignty, egalitarianism and justice will have their day.