HomeAbout / MissionScience deconstructedPseudo-skeptics deconstructedConsciousnessNondualityDMTThe control systemDecentralization

Articles by topic

The truth about ...

Authority

or: Humanity's root problem (or challenge)

authority (n.)

  1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. ("he had absolute authority over his subordinates") [synonyms: power, jurisdiction, command, control, mastery, charge, dominance, dominion, rule, sovereignty, ascendancy, supremacy, domination; influence, sway, the upper hand, leverage, hold, grip]
    • the right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another. ("military forces have the legal authority to arrest drug traffickers")
    • official permission; sanction. ("the money was spent without parliamentary authority")
  2. a person or organization having political or administrative power and control. ("health authorities issued a worldwide alert") [synonyms: officials, officialdom, the people in charge, the government, the administration, the establishment, the bureaucracy, the system; informal: the powers that be, the (men in) suits, Big Brother]
  3. the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something. ("he has the natural authority of one who is used to being obeyed") [synonyms: influence, sway, control, leverage, power, command, weight]
    • the confidence resulting from personal expertise. ("he hit the ball with authority")
    • a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert. ("he was an authority on the stock market") [synonyms: expert, specialist, professional, pundit, oracle, past master, master, adept]
    • a book or other source able to supply reliable information or evidence. ("the court cited a series of authorities supporting their decision")

More simply put by Wikipedia:

The word authority (derived from the Latin word auctoritas) can be used to mean power given by the state (in the form of government, judges, police officers, etc.) or by academic knowledge of an area (someone can be an authority on a subject).

[...]

In government, the term authority is often used interchangeably with power. However, their meanings differ: while power is defined as "the ability to influence somebody to do something that he/she would not have done", authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. For example, while a mob has the power to punish a criminal, for example by lynching, people who believe in the rule of law consider that only a court of law has the authority to punish a criminal legally as the law says.

Authority as slavery

Put in the simplest terms:

Authority requires violence for its enforcement.

Therefore, authority is a barbaric, primitive practice.

It's as simple as that, if one is honest with oneself.

Everyone either truly understands freedom, or they are advocating slavery in some form or fashion. And they are advocating Wrongs being conducted against people, with impunity — meaning [that] they believe in the concept of authority. This is the first place people need to get their minds out of. There is no such thing as the concept of authority that is inherent to mankind, or any 3-dimensional beings at all — there is no such thing as authority.

The concept of authority is — the erroneous concept of authority that does not exist in nature — is [that] some people are masters that get to make up the rules that they say are the way things are, and other people have a moral obligation to obey them — they're called their subjects. And, if they don't obey them, then violent behavior can be conducted against them, whether they were hurting anybody or not.

So, that's what authority is. It's not my opinion of what authority is — it's what it is. And if people are honest, they will be honest with themselves [and concede that] yes, that's what authority is.

See, the absence of authority does not mean the absence of rules — this is the other dark worldview that people have bought into — there are all these rules, because there's always Natural Law.

Mark Passio

The belief in authority is the unquestioned implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of a master–slave relationship — as researcher Stefan Molyneux visually illustrates:

The Story of Your Enslavement

We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own.

The best deconstruction of the belief in authority, however, is provided by Larken Rose, hands down:

Larken Rose on the Belief in Authority

Larken Rose demolishes the Myth of Authority in four short minutes.

It is only the belief in the legitimacy of the ruling class, the belief that we are obligated to obey it because it's "authority". It has the right to rule, we have the obligation to obey — that belief is a lie, and that belief is the entire problem.

Larken Rose

Larken Rose on the initiation of violence

Analogously to the Hard Problem of science, authority is the Hard Problem of humanity. It is hard to come to terms with the reality of what is actually happening, while letting go of the previously unexamined beliefs that concealed the root of almost all of the world's evil.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

Henry David Thoreau

Authority in political science

The idea of "political science" comprises a layer of obfuscation on top of the inherently illegitimate notion that a human being can have "authority" to grant or revoke other people's natural rights.

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and political culture. Political scientists "see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works."

As Stefan Molyneux succintly put it, "political science is the art of hiding crimes, in verbiage".

The central tenet of the whole idea of political science is "legitimacy":

In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. Whereas “authority“ denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy“ denotes a system of government — wherein “government“ denotes “sphere of influence“. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite. In Chinese political philosophy, since the historical period of the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BC), the political legitimacy of a ruler and government was derived from the Mandate of Heaven, and that unjust rulers who lose said mandate, therefore lose the right to rule the people.

In moral philosophy, the term “legitimacy“ often is positively interpreted as the normative status conferred by a governed people upon their governors’ institutions, offices, and actions, based upon the belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power by a legally constituted government. In law, “legitimacy“ is distinguished from “legality“ (see colour of law), to establish that a government action can be legal whilst not being legitimate, e.g. the Southeast Asia Resolution, Public Law 88-408 (The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which allowed the U.S. to war against Vietnam, without a formal declaration of war; a government action can be legitimate without being legal, e.g. a pre-emptive war, a military junta. An example of such matters arises when legitimate institutions clash in a constitutional crisis.

The Enlightenment-era British social theoretician John Locke (1632–1704) said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed: “The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed.“ The German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger said, “Legitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised, both with a consciousness on the government’s part that it has a right to govern, and with some recognition by the governed of that right.“ The American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy also “involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society.“ The American political theorist Robert A. Dahl explained legitimacy as a reservoir; so long as the water is at a given level, political stability is maintained, if it falls below the required level, political legitimacy is endangered.

Consent of the governed

In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".

The "will of the people" cannot include the idea of delegating a right they do not have. No group of people, no matter how large, can delegate the right to initiate violence. As Larken Rose, the "authority" on "authority", put it, "how painfully obvious is that?"

[W]hen you look at it closely, the government’s supposed authority or mandate evaporates into thin air. There is no producible piece of paper that you signed called a “social contract“; there is no real consent where there is no real way to opt-out; there is no legal or moral justification for a majority to forcibly impose its views and will on a minority; and lastly, government does not deserve a special moral status just because it provides benefits to some, which we may or may not need and want. Careful examination of government shows that its purported political authority is built on a house of sand, and has no solid basis. The truth is that government rules by the barrel of a gun, and its authority is utterly illegitimate.

Makia Freeman, Tools For Freedom

The illusion of the "divine right of kings" (rule by one, monarchy) has simply been replaced by the illusion of "consent of the governed" (rule by many, democracy). Providing food, shelter, healthcare, etc, for chained slaves is costly, difficult, time-consuming, and risky, because the chained slave is very aware of his shackles. Release the shackles and give the slaves an illusion of power by giving them an illusion of choice, and the slaves will believe that they are free — as Larken Rose illustrates:

The Jones Plantation

One cannot change reality by changing the words you use to describe reality. Look beneath the rhetoric, and glimpse the truth.

The man who is denied the opportunity of taking decisions of importance begins to regard as important the decisions he is allowed to take.

C. Northcote Parkinson, author and historian (1909-1993)

And so we are fooled into believing that voting is important — deciding between one rich psychopath or another to rule over us. The election cycles, as presented to us by the politicians through the mainstream media (without whom we would never know of "elections"), are a farce, a charade, a theatrical hoax designed — whether or not from the beginning — to make it seem as if we are electing our "leaders".

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Democracy is slavery 2.0, simply a more clever form of slavery, in which the energy produced by the slave's work is, via abstraction, converted to money, and then partially stolen by force ("taxed") to perpetuate the idea of "government". As Stefan Molyneux illustrated in the above video, the human livestock, once freed from their shackles, know nothing else than to continue to bow to their masters, for they have never known anything else — thus they will willingly obey the rules of the game created by their masters. They will provide for themselves (food, shelter, etc) and give part of the fruit of their labor to their masters, while completely and entirely believing that they are free human beings.

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.

Steve Biko, anti-apartheid activist (1946-1977)

It's actually the only weapon. Shackles are an always-present reminder of the slave's condition, as bars are to the imprisoned. The real prison, however, exists only in the mind. There are really no "positions of power" — only effective methods of mind control.

Authority and human nature

The following 1-hour documentary addresses the question of human nature and the idea that authority is inherent in human nature as an outgrowth of primate male dominance patriarchy (an idea that is vaguely called Social Darwinism).

Mark Corske's ENGINES OF DOMINATION (2014)

Political power -- armed central authority, with states and war -- is it part of human nature? Is it necessary for human communities? Or is it a tool that ruling elites use to live at the expense of communities? A tool that does violence to human nature and the world?

Engines of Domination offers a theory of political power as a tool for making tools of human beings -- an engine that converts human energy into authority and privilege for the rulers. Invented in the Bronze Age, brilliantly refined for six thousand years, today the engine has caused a human emergency that threatens to destroy our world.

This documentary makes a powerful argument that there is only one way to save the future. Armed central authority must be abolished, giving way to a world of peaceful voluntary communities -- in other words, an argument for anarchism.

Jiddu Krishnamurti on artificial divisions

Corske says that humans lived in communities without central authority institutions (political power) for 250,000 years until the Bronze Age about 6,000 years ago. "During that time our ancestors migrated over most of the planet, survived 3 ice ages, and advanced from subsistence foraging to agriculture."

He equates the "so-called birth of civilization" with the birth of political power, and points out that it has only existed for 3% of our human family history. (If using Bashar's 500,000 year dating for the creation of homo sapiens, it would be 1.2%.)

Corske defines political power as a tool — a tool to make human tools.

Corske distinguishes "hard subjugation" and "soft subjugation" — direct threat of violence, and deceit to trick the subject into compliance — government and media.

The 7 components of the engine:

  1. land-holding by force of arms
  2. the command structure
  3. the destruction industry
  4. forced labor
  5. the class structure
  6. thought control
  7. human sacrifice

These are the institutions that make up the tool of political power, in Corske's model.

Is human nature ingrained to yearn for power? If so, "it's absurd to give people an entrenched mechanism by which they can exert that desire. No humans throughout recorded history have been as connected or informed as the people of this Information Age. It's this newfound connectivity that will allow self-governance to flourish where it may have faltered before."

Authority vs. anarchy

One YouTube commenter points out the absurdity of the fear of anarchy that we all at first have when we are statists:

Let's put this on a more personal level, rather than a hypothetical one. If government were abolished tomorrow, would you run rampant, committing crimes in the expectation that those crimes would go unpunished? Would you live like a moral human being, or like a savage? What about your family; would they? Your friends?

There are bad people among us, but the illusion that "everyone is bad" doesn't hold up to scrutiny...only a small portion of society is criminally-bent. The problem is the main-stream-media glorification of this small minority; it creates a false impression. "Victimless" crimes also help to perpetuate the illusion, by making criminals out of people who have done no harm.

A universal standard of law is simple: Do No Harm. For most of its existance, society governed itself using Common Law, natural law, and/or moral law. Any of these three would be far preferable to the statutory law being used today. Common Law does not allow for "victimless" crimes, while statutory law thrives upon it. Not only that, but law shouldn't be so complex that the common man can't access it; this is an invitation for law to be usurped and used as a weapon against the people; which it currently is.

Terence McKenna provides more reasons why one should reject authority:

Terence McKenna - Trust Yourself

.... Reject authority. Authority is a lie and an abomination. Authority will lead you into ruin. It's not real. ....

Terence McKenna

What McKenna calls the "dominator culture" is what we refer to as the control system, because culture is a matrix of collective beliefs, which are programmable.

Bashar on authority

Bashar explains how, as we are born, we choose to buy into belief systems in exchange for love:

Bashar - Society and Conditioning

Segment from "Shattering Patterns".

Teal Swan explains the problem from a different angle:

False Self vs. Real Self - Teal Swan

Most of us have no idea who we really are because we are shamed out of our true selves as children growing up in dysfunctional families in this dysfunctional human society. In order to adapt to our families and to society, we have created false selves. We have created false selves that are so good at what they do; even we have mistaken them for ourselves. We have a major problem differentiating between our false self and our real self. In this episode, Teal Swan explores the topic of the 'false self' in depth and gives suggestions for how we can begin to drop the façade and live as our true selves.

And Stefan Molyneux elucidates how easy it is to fix:

The Story of Our Unenslavement

If we don't speak the language of slaves, we cannot remain enslaved.

Mark Passio on our current condition
Mark Passio on ownership
Mark Passio on stealing
Mark Passio on Natural Law as common sense
Mark Passio on the exercise of conscience
Mark Passio on the Law of Freedom
Mark Passio on moral relativism
Mark Passio on Natural Law vs. man's law
Mark Passio on the logic of Natural Law
Mark Passio on the irrelevance of man's law
Mark Passio on real equality
Mark Passio on the immorality of government
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Authority vs. Natural Law

Natural Law logically defines moral behavior (morality). It is obvious and simple once understood, as Mark Passio most eloquently elucidates. Once Natural Law has been elucidated, man-made laws are understood to be irrelevant and unnecessary. By suppressing the simple principles described by Natural Law from public perception, the impression of moral relativism has been created, wherein morality is a relative, abstract concept that entirely depends upon the perception and subjective judgment of any particular person or culture.

The commonly-believed idea that humans need to be "governed" (controlled) arises from the de facto fundamental assumption of moral relativism. The core justification underlying the belief in the legitimacy of "authority", the idea of the "consent of the governed" — the replacement for the idea of the "divine right of kings" — can thus gain some credibility, and people who are thus believed to be vested with "authority" then create man-made laws (legislation) which may or may not be in harmony with Natural Law.

Authority as a religion

Properly understood, authority is the largest human religion, more pervasive than all other religions (loosely: scientism, money, and Abrahamic monotheism). The belief in authority is handed down memetically by the culture in exactly the same way as the other religions. A human being brought up as a Christian, if sufficiently indocrinated within the first six years of life — the period during which beliefs (neural pathways) are crystallized while the child's consciousness receiver (brain) is operating in the theta and delta brainwave frequency ranges (and thus its Physical Mind is able to perceive higher-dimensional frequencies) — is unlikely to ever leave behind the Biblical/denominational axioms he/she was taught.

In the case of the authority axiom, however, even if the beliefs are highly crystallized (neural pathways quite "hard-wired"), most human beings are able to leave it behind, if willing to examine the issue before dismissing the idea. The difference lies in that the authority believer wasn't aware that he/she was taking it on faith, so the logic "forces itself" into the belief system. Because of the power of the common-sensical logic of concepts such as voluntaryism, the honest human mind will have recurring thoughts about it, which inevitably refines the belief system (rewires the neural pathways) that heretofore was unconscious rather than conscious. No voluntaryist ever goes back to advocating involuntaryism again.

It's only obvious when you're there. When I wasn't there, it wasn't at all obvious that voluntaryism is the only sane, moral thing to be, because everything else you can be, is an involutaryist, and that cannot be moral. But, back when I was an involuntaryist, a statist, I didn't see it that way. I didn't understand that those were the options, and I didn't want to be dragged to somewhere that to me looked foreign and weird and immoral.

Larken Rose

Those who have not broken free from the belief in authority should ask themselves...

Where does legitimate authority begin or end?

To people who have not had the true nature of authority and morality elucidated to them, but who have witnessed extreme corruption surrounding them, the question arises: what is the threshold that separates legitimate governance and "authoritarian" governance? Of course, the distinction is an illusion, because authority could not be legitimate, unless one supports the initiation of non-defensive force (i.e. violence) against one's fellow human. Some people believe in "authority" but have become disillusioned by its presumed extrinsic corruption.

I feel... that we are now in the hands of conmen.

Daniel Ellsberg

We always were... and yet we never really were.

7 social processes that grease the slippery slope of evil

Ellsberg is far from alone. Many apparent/supposed "exposers of corruption" and "whistleblowers" fall into this reverse-Chomsky category. They are smart and apparently honest people, but somehow they are unable to take the next step and realize that statism (and the belief in "authority") itself is the root problem. Once elucidated appropriately, it is obvious that "government" has never been, and could not ever be, a legitimate idea.

Another example is Philip Lombardo, who proposes some great ideas such as developing a "hero in the waiting" mentality in children so that we will begin to automatically take action against evil instead of passively observing it while doing nothing, but still operates under the unexamined assumption that "authority" itself is a legitimate idea.

In obedience there is always fear, and fear darkens the mind.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Why is authority the root problem?

Larken Rose explains it best in his YouTube videos:

Why Government can NEVER be Fixed!! feat: Larken Rose

Larken Rose unleashes a 2-hour barrage of common sense.

Summed up:

The belief in "authority," which includes all belief in "government," is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in "authority" is the arch-enemy of humanity.

Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition

Even beyond the common-sense logic so eloquently expressed by Larken, we suggest that the belief in authority is a reflection of the more fundamental unconscious belief in an objective reality. By believing that events need to happen by making them happen in a certain way, people can then fall for the belief that the best way to make things happen is by deferring responsibility to "the people in charge" of making things happen.

We tend to disempower ourselves. We tend to believe that we don't matter. And in the act of taking that idea to ourselves we give everything away to somebody else, to something else.

Terence McKenna

Even the more innoccuous meaning of the term (expertise; "the authority on a subject") can thus be seen to be problematic. Spanish researcher José Alfonso Hernando, who has developed a theory of everything (TOE) in Spanish, uses the term tejedores de realidades sociales (weavers of social realities) to describe the "authorities" on any particular subject — which refers to the more innoccuous meaning (expertise) rather than the more pernicious meaning (violent enforcement).

The real meaning of authority

As if English were a language created by the angels, the real meaning is right there in the word itself (author-ity):

... So, when somebody speaks as an authority, that means "speaks as the author". That's all it means. It's a statement of which you are the author and therefore for which you assume responsibility. That is to speak with authority.

Alan Watts [source]

Alan Watts & Terence McKenna: Individual Authority

[Published on Sep 5, 2015] A mix of Alan Watts & Terence McKenna. For more videos like this, see my PLAYLIST.

Expertology

In the following podcast, researcher James Corbett explains the "experts say" culture that the mainstream media has created:

The experts always know best…or do they? Join us today on The Corbett Report podcast as we scrutinize the media’s ready reliance on “experts“ to say what the establishment wants to be said, and what this practice means for the rise of the scientific dictatorship.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on slavery has this notice at the top:

This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. In particular, citation titles should be specified, perhaps also check the split reference section (footnotes and bibliography) contain the correct sources.. (June 2015)

Slavery is a legal or economic system under which people are treated as property. While laws and systems have varied, as property, slaves may be bought and sold. Slaves can be held from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work or to demand compensation.

Slavery existed before written history and in many cultures. It was once institutionally recognized by most societies, but has now been outlawed in all countries, the last being Mauritania in 2007. However, it continues through such practices as debt bondage, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, human trafficking and forced marriage. Accordingly, there are still an estimated 20 million to 36 million slaves worldwide.

In other words, the Wikipedia editors of the article on slavery, following Wikipedia policy, are looking for more/better "authorities" to reference so that the article can become appropriately "encyclopedic" (backed by the "authority" of "experts")... because the editors themselves couldn't possibly be "authoritative" enough!

Domestication vs. authenticity

As shamanic researcher Mateo Sol writes:

... This process of losing your authenticity and replacing it with thoughts in the form of fears, shameful memories, rules, social values and beliefs is known as domestication.

Our domestication can turn into a disease if our parents do not have the awareness and wisdom of what they are passing on. Just like pets, we are domesticated with an emotional reward or punishment system. If our behavior is desirable we are rewarded with attention and affection. If our behavior is not acceptable we are punished by the rejection of our parents or peers.

As children we didn't care about people's opinions or judgments, we lived in the present and our self-worth came from our authenticity. Now, however, our thoughts are more predominant. With thoughts come fears, and suddenly our need to be accepted grows. Our self-worth is now put into the hands of other people and their opinions of us.

This new self-worth system forces us to change. It forces us to create a false image of ourselves, a dream. Slowly we begin to notice that different people expect different things from us; our parents, our teachers, our friends, our priests, our bosses, our siblings, our lovers, and so we are split up into dozens of different versions of ourselves. We become so good at living up to these different images of ourselves that we forget who we really are.

When your self-worth comes from your false image instead of your authenticity you constantly feel off-center, anxious and incomplete. Deep down your unconscious knows this image of yourself isn't true, deep down you know that you're pretending. The danger is for example, that if your false image is that of being a "smart and witty person", you are prone to having your self-worth shattered publicly if someone outsmarts you. This is when we learn to hate ourselves.

With a shaky sense of self-worth comes insecurity problems. Insecurities are formed when you expect to externally live up to an image you envision for yourself, but deep down you know the internal image of yourself is different. The greater the discrepancy between these two images, the more insecure you will feel.

This false image is what in psychological terms is known as your "ego". It is responsible for that need to always be "right". We need to feel right and prove that others are wrong because we want to protect this false image we project to the outside world, to feel reassured that we aren't lying to ourselves.

This need to be "right" is what gives birth to that constant struggle for perfection, and the approval of others. We suffer so much and try so hard to be important, successful, rich, famous, powerful, and we do this by forcing our dream, our false illusion, to be real and more valid than other people's dreams.

This suffering we undergo in order to be perfect is essentially to please other people. It is a lie we fool ourselves into believing that we should be a certain way in order to acknowledge that we are good, in order to accept ourselves. I have previously explained that perfection doesn't exist. You are never going to be good enough, healthy enough, smart enough or pretty enough because you are chasing an ideal that is a false illusion, a dream.

Mateo Sol

Epistemological anarchism

Anarchism doesn't just apply in an ontological sense, but also in an epistemological sense — and completely so:

Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.

The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory, as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies. Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology, and, despite its successes, science had started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded. Promulgation of the theory earned Feyerabend the title of "the worst enemy of science" from his detractors.

Feyerabend "felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded." This is exactly what we are saying. On our page Fundamental assumptions of science we describe the ontological assumptions that the epistemological enterprise of science operates within/upon, while on the Scientism page we describe how the belief system that science is a supreme and sufficient ontological tool is a religion, and on the Skeptics page we describe how self-described "defenders of science" are (in effect, even if unknowingly) the expression of the fanatical extreme of this religion.

Fanatical implies authoritarian, which is why the pseudo-skeptics believe not only what "scientific authorities" say but also what "political-media authorities" say — and in fact believe only what perceived "authorities" believe. In pseudo-skeptical mindsets, truth has become unconsciously equated with authoritativeness.

The underlying fundamental ontological assumption of scientism is called physicalism (or fundamentalist-materialism, as coined by experimental biologist Rupert Sheldrake) — the dogmatic assumption that consciousness (mental phenomena) and life (biology) are emergent phenomena that (somehow, but certainly so) arise from insentient matter.

Beyond physicalism, the underlying fundamental ontological assumption of the idea of science itself is what we are calling the objective reality metaparadigm — the assumption that reality exists objectively outside of consciousness, rather than inside of it as part of the self. The idea of a paradigm, in its scientific context, was defined by the historian of science Thomas Kuhn, while the idea of a metaparadigm — the paradigm of the paradigms that defines their underlying assumptions — was first defined (as far as we can tell) by physicist Peter Russell.

Most "educated" people in the West believe in scientism to some degree, without recognizing it as a religion, often displaying scientistic prejudice by dismissing ideas (labeled "paranormal") that seem beyond the scope of possibility for scientific empiricism to objectively "verify". Beyond this subtle influence of scientism, there are the self-proclaimed "skeptics" (proselytizers of scientism), who are gullibly cynical (pseudo-skeptical), having entrapped their minds in an ontological box of limited possibilities, which is defined by (the current extent of) the reach of the (primary) epistemological enterprise of the objective reality metaparadigm (i.e. the scientific method), and further limited by the doctrine of empirical reductionism — one of the central dogmas of scientism, along with physicalism.

Legitimate uses of authority

In certain contexts, the word authority has a non-negative meaning — such as in cryptography, wherein "authority" is synonymous with "trusted third party" (e.g. a certificate authority). Also, as cryptocurrency pioneer Nick Szabo points out, certain things can be thought of as authorities, such as "authoritative automata", "authoritative devices", "authoritative algorithms", etc. However, these uses are, probably in all cases, a reflection of our unconscious belief in (the legitimacy of) human authority, and therefore could simply be replaced with a more appropriate term (such as "trusted third party", in the case of cryptography). Cryptography, being a highly precise field built on the "formal sciences" based on mathematics, now pushed/pulled by the collaborative unifying effect on the collective consciousness enabled by the Internet, is already moving away from centralized ("authority"/"trusted third party"-based) cryptosystems towards decentralization, thus technologically obsoleting the primary control vector of the authority-based control system run by people who call themselves "government" who are believed to be vested with "authority" to grant and revoke the natural rights of other human beings: the centralized control of money — which can then be "taxed" to fund the perpetuation of "government".

I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. [...] With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous creator of Bitcoin (the first decentralized cryptocurrency), has literally created a new form of money that completely bypasses the very idea of centralized/authoritarian control over money, in which trust/security is provided by impartial computational power instead of a centralized human "authority".

Authority in the subjective reality metaparadigm

In the subjective reality metaparadgm, there could be no authorities, for there is nothing to be authoritative of, because reality exists only subjectively. If there is no objective reality, then what we have called "laws of physics" are really collective agreements. Agreements that exist in higher-dimensional realms that our "empirical" science cannot begin to detect, but which every empiricist can easily detect using supplemental DMT.

Facilitators of synchronicity as the replacement for government/authority

As researcher Kirk Nielsen of Harmonious Earth explains:

Government — Power — Common Values — Decision Making

The Time Has Come For Us To Govern Ourselves

On a Harmonious Earth we do not need to be governed in the way we did in the past. We now know what we want and take responsibility for ourselves and trust that following our excitement will drive and organize what needs to happen.

We are our government. Government is inside of us, not outside of us. It is a concept we create inside our consciousness which can be transformed to what we prefer by transforming our beliefs about what government is.

We have opened up the unconscious parts of ourselves and have integrated what we have kept hidden. We want full disclosure and transparency. We no longer need to be told what to do or to be protected from ourselves. We want to share and work with each other in a kind and loving way without restriction. We can get along because we now realize we are joined with each other and there is enough for all. We know there is nothing that can harm us if we do not subscribe to the frequency of fear.

Facilitators of Synchronicity are the Replacement for Government

The replacement for what we now call government is an organizing body or group that assist in the facilitation of synchronicity. They make sure that the information that needs to get to people gets to people. They do not govern anything. These facilitators assist in connecting those who have goods and services with those who need them, so there is a smooth back and forth flow. When a need arises, it is filled by those that possess the talent to fill it, with “facilitators of synchronicity“ assisting to make sure the connections get made, but not more than that.

There is no competition. There is cooperation. With no profits that need to be maintained, no economy that needs to be upheld or laws that need to be enforced, there is no need for the old style of government. There is the need to keep things flowing smoothly and freely across the network and that is all that is needed. Facilitators do not dictate, they facilitate synchronicity. No one person or group has power over anyone else.

True individual autonomy is recognized. Every person is seen as his own uniques puzzle piece that fits automatically into the whole puzzle picture and the whole puzzle picture therefore automatically supports each individual puzzle piece. Trust that everything is happening for a reason and that you have what you need to have when you need to have it is completely understood and embraced. The shape of each individual determines the structure that needs to be there instantly, automatically, and effortlessly to create the big picture.

This seamless working together only works when each individual is their “true“ self. They can’t be operating out of their negative ego. Everyone understands that they are their own reality, fully empowered, and equal to everyone else. All the members of the society are telempathically bonded by believing in the same core common values, while at the same time expressing their individual talents and values by following their highest excitement. The full expression of each individual and each individual’s understanding of their place in the group creates the strongest society that can be created.

“It is understood that ‘beliefs’ are self governing and so when we harmonize our beliefs we are automatically unified and governed.“

Indeed, if the subjective reality metaparadigm is the correct ontology, then it is a matter of tuning/directing one's frequency away from the frequency of fear and towards the frequency of love, the former of which the people who call themselves government are all operating under — otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to try to control anything.

Authority in the animal kingdom

The animal "kingdom" displays many similar authority-based (i.e. violence-based) behaviors as in humans who believe in the legitimacy of authority due to the (unconscious) belief in moral relativism and thus Social Darwinism.

The observation that our closest relatives (in terms of biological ancestry) — the other Great Apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) — form hierarchical structures with a dominating alpha male at the top, is not necessarily any more than a reflection of ourselves — as Bashar explains:

Bashar - Animal Consciousness

A segment from 'Rising from the Ashes' (2012-06-02).

The idea is that there are an infinite number of parallel realities in the higher dimensions, in some of which all Great Apes (including humans) are completely non-violent to each other (for example).

Imagination is the channel of communication between the Higher Mind and the Physical Mind, the 5th-dimensional and 4th-dimensional aspects of the self, respectively, in the subjective reality metaparadigm described by Bashar. Anything that one can imagine, exists, in some form, somewhere, by definition (otherwise it couldn't be perceived, because non-existence doesn't exist — there is no outside to existence). The non-human animals are aware of this and their infinite unending nature, so they choose to reflect back to us the themes that human consciousness is playing out by partaking in the game to an extent.

Quotes

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Carl Sagan

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did not wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

Lord Acton, historian and politician (1887)

Culture and language tend to become traps. And yet they can be the platforms for enourmous freedom, if you understand what it's all about. And what it's all about, is you. You are the center of the mandala. You are not marginalized in any way. And the message that the culture gives us is that we are marginal. [...] This is part of the democratic legacy; we are constantly told, "you're not special; special isn't special; anybody could do it". And so then when you look for guidance, direction, mentorship — we always look towards institutions. "Well I'll go to the university. Or I'll go to the army, or I'll do something. Somebody will tell me [what to do], will give me a larger purpose." But, it's really yourself, that is the final arbiter. And if you keep yourself as the final arbiter, you will be less susceptible to infection by cultural illusion. Now, the problem with this is, that it makes you feel bad to not be infected by cultural illusion, because it's called alienation, you know? But this is — I can't solve all problems — the reason we feel alienated is because the society is infantile, trivial, and stupid. So the cost of sanity, in this society, is a certain level of alienation.

Terence McKenna, 1994

Our memories are card indexes consulted and then returned in disorder by authorities whom we do not control.

Cyril Connolly, critic and editor (1903-1974)

All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

To repress rebellion is to maintain the status quo, a condition which binds the mortal creature in a state of intellectual or physical slavery. But it is impossible to chain man merely by slaving his body; the mind also must be held, and to accomplish this, fear is the accepted weapon. The common man must fear life, fear death, fear God, fear the Devil, and fear most the overlords, the keepers of his destiny.

Manly Palmer Hall

When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you… you may know that your society is doomed.

Ayn Rand

We must learn to honor excellence in every socially accepted human activity, however humble the activity, and to scorn shoddiness, however exalted the activity. An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society that scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.

John W. Gardner, author (1912-2002)

They have one real, and only one real, tactic. And that is manipulating information to the degree where they allow others to believe they're more powerful than they are. So if people buy into the idea that they have more influence than they do, that they're more powerful than they actually are, then suddenly they're perceived and experienced to be more powerful than they are. But that's what they actually do — they manipulate information to make themselves seem more in control and more powerful than they actually are. But they're not really in control of anything at all; in fact they're panicked that they're not in control, which is why they cover a lot of stuff up.

Bashar


Related concepts

Concepts intimately related to the belief in "authority" include: voluntaryism/involuntaryism, anarchism/statism, anarchy/hierarchy, minarchism/collectivism, slavery/democracy, and the Milgram, Asch, and Stanford Prison experiments:

The Milgram experiment (authority)

This is the infamous experiment that proves that everyday people, who are otherwise decent and friendly human beings, will harm other people if told to do so by a figure of authority, even without the belief that they have an obligation to obey by reason of law.

Psychology: Electric Shock Experiment (Milgram Experiment)

How ready are normal people to inflict a vast amount of suffering on other subjects when ordered to?

With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe.

A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.

Dr. Stanley Milgram

False objections

A 2012 book by Gina Perry claims that the Milgram experiments were fraudulent, yet the experiments have been replicated numerous times and the results are always the same. As an amazon.com commenter writes:

If this were not enough, Perry ignores "The Puppy Shock Experiments" [Sheridan, C.L., & R.G. King (1972). "Obedience to Authority with an Authentic Victim." Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 80: 165-166.] which tested the Milgram results with a real victim. Spoiler Alert: same results. Perry also fails to cite or comment on the hundreds of times Milgram's results have been replicated in other countries [see Thomas Blass]. It is just phenomenal how Perry was allowed to ignore facts that contradict her central argument: it is as if the field of social psychology ceased to exist after Milgram and Perry has just re-discovered it and started the conversation anew. Quite a magic trick!

[anon] Why do cops cage peaceful people? Why do prosecutors and judges devastate and destroy people's lives? Why do soldiers kill? You have heard the excuses like, "It's my job.", "I have no choice." and "I wish I did not have to do this." These people are able to hurt others by mentally relieving themselves of responsibility. They are able to do what they know is wrong as long as they are able to put the responsibility off on someone else like their boss, the rules, the law, the legislature, the "people" etc. A fair system would be comprised of people who are allowed to act upon their own conscience.

[Ikos Log] Excellent examples to put this into practical perspective of modern society. It appears that "normal" non sociopathic individuals will do just about anything if the responsibility can be shifted to another person (Authority figure) and this allows them an ease of rationalizing the behavior so they can have a "clear" conscious if you will...

The Asch experiment (conformity)

During the 1950s Solomon Asch conducted and published a series of experiments that demonstrated the degree to which an individual's own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group, demonstrating how a "normal" human being can be pressured into unusual behavior by people they deem as authority figures, or by the consensus of opinion around them:

Asch Conformity Experiment

Classic footage from the Asch conformity study. This version includes definitions of normative and informational conformity and the powerful effect of having an ally.

The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.

Solomon Asch

The Stanford Prison experiment (power)

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment, a dramatic simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment and one of the best known psychology experiments ever undertaken. Dr. Zimbardo takes us through the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which healthy college students are transformed into unstable prisoners and brutal prison guards within days by the power of the situation in which they found themselves.

The philosophy of liberty

The Philosophy of Liberty (HD with voiceover)

This classic video was made by Kerry Pearson (aka Lux Lucre), based on the epilogue of The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible, a book by Ken Schoolland. The text and visuals are remarkable for their clarity and simplicity, and the music makes an excellent accompaniment to them.

By this reasoning, all forms of violence and fraud can be seen to be a form of theft. Whether taking one's life, liberty, or car, a form of property is being taken without voluntary consent, thus they are all forms of theft.

Collectivism

Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the significance of groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—and tends to analyze issues in those terms. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and in some cases stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an "in-group", in what specific context it is defined).

Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used and has been used as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history and all human societies in practice contain elements of both individualism and collectivism. Some examples of collectivist democracies include Portugal, India, and Japan.

Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and on moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization. A cooperative enterprise would be an example of horizontal collectivism, whereas a military hierarchy would be an example of vertical collectivism.

Collectivism — the idea of rescinding individual rights in the name of the "common good" — is an idea that has been used by all governments, and is reflected most strongly in the most authoritarian governments, such as the USSR and NSDAP Germany. As we describe on the Decentralization page, all centralized systems are collapsing as we move towards horizontal (non-hierarchical) decentralized (non-centrally-controlled, distributed power) cryptosystems-based forms of organization.

Statism

Statism is the largest religion on planet Earth. Statists (unconscious believers in authority, and thus in the legitimacy of slavery) falsely believe that if there were no laws or government, chaos (which they equate with anarchy) would ensue — because humans are obviously not quite civilized, so they need a gang of thugs controlling things so as to protect themselves from bad people such as gangs of thugs.

The state is the organization of coercive power over a territory.

Jurisdiction is the invention of the rules that the state violently enforces over the territory it has gained control over. The members of the state then give these territories (geographical areas) names such as "United Kingdom", "People's Republic of China", "United States of America", "Russian Federation", "Kingdom of Spain", "Saudi Arabia", "Islamic Republic of Iran", etc.

Minarchism

Minarchism is the idea of an "as small as possible" "government" with "limited" "state" "power". The most frequently cited example of this is the United States of America as envisioned by its "founding fathers" (whom, of course, "owned" slaves, just as the founders of "democracy" did). The irony is that the most cited example is the one that, over some 200 years, turned into the largest empire in "recorded history".

There is no such thing as "limited government" any more than there is "limited slavery".

Minarchism: Great Start, Horrible Finish

[Published on Aug 18, 2013] This is for all those who complain about how I constantly bash minarchism, the Constitution, and other "limited government" myths. Don't worry; I'm almost nice this time.

Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco

[Published on Feb 24, 2016] Larken Rose and Mark Skousen debate the need of government in society. This is something you would not want to miss.

(See also: How to get from "limited government" to anarchism with Larken Rose).

Voluntaryism vs. involuntaryism

The voluntaryism/involuntaryism polarity is one of the most powerful ideas because once elucidated, the madness that is statism (involuntaryism) is so obvious that no moral human being could truly continue advocating involuntary coercive organization.

It's only obvious when you're there. When I wasn't there, it wasn't at all obvious that voluntaryism is the only sane, moral thing to be, because everything else you can be, is an involutaryist, and that cannot be moral. But, back when I was an involuntaryist, a statist, I didn't see it that way. I didn't understand that those were the options, and I didn't want to be dragged to somewhere that to me looked foreign and weird and immoral.

And, so, the good news is, uh, you know, people ask me, 'what do you think the chances are that we're gonna actually some day have a society without government? 100%, absolutely, 100% (now how we're gonna get there is another question), for the same reason that it was absolutely destined that eventually the human race would know the Earth is spherical and not flat, because the evidence is gonna stare them in the face, until they accept it, and once they accept and understand it, they're never going back. Once people see that the concept of authority and government is logically contradictory and immoral and insane, they give it up, they don't go back. How many anarchists do you know [that] have gone back to statism? It's a one-way trip.

Larken Rose

Voluntary cooperation, as opposed to forced cooperation and competition, is the natural state of affairs. Evolution is not about "survival of the fittest", as biologist Dr. Bruce Lipton eloquently explains within the parameters of Western science. Evolution is about consciously changing yourself thus harmoniously adapting to changes in the apparently external environment — which really only exists within consciousness (as posited by the subjective reality metaparadigm).

Anarchy

Anarchism has nothing to do with doing "something" to the ruling class (as Larken Rose explains in the second video on this page). It is simply the recognition that their "power" exists only in our minds, because we hallucinate that we have an obligation to obey "authority". Paying attention to them is what they want. When we "protest" (i.e. beg our masters to allow us to have more of what we already have but imagine that we don't), they are delighted. When nothing much seems to be happening is when Damocles' sword ("an allusion to the imminent and ever-present peril faced by those in positions of power") is felt the most.

The problem is not and has never been who's on the throne. The problem is, and has always been, and will always be until people wake up, that there is a throne there to be on. And, as long as the argument is what government should do, who should run it, [or] what form it should take, you're just tinkering with the details and completely ignoring the heart of the problem — which is the belief in government, and authoritarianism. So any activism that doesn't hit at that belief, that doesn't strike at that root, is worse than worthless. Not only does it treat symptoms that aren't gonna change anyway, but it actually reinforces in the minds of all the listeners and viewers, that that heart cannot be touched, that of course we need government.

Larken Rose

Anarchy could be seen as the antithesis to authority. However, anarchy is better defined as the natural state of affairs.

Hierarchy

Many people have argued that hierarchical organization is possible by agreement; it does not necessarily require coercion (authoritarian enforcement). Researcher Humberto Braga explains:

As infants and children, we rely on our parents/elders as reference points for the actualization of our identity and understanding of reality. Due to this primal developmental mechanism, often found in the animal kingdom as well, people within a society often create hierarchical models through social roles as reference points to dictate personal behavior and identity. As above, so below; as internally, so externally, right? This is perfectly natural and, along the path of growth, serves as an adjunct stepping stone toward self-discovery.

However, even as “adults“, due to humanity’s largely unconscious condition reinforced by cultural programming, many people have yet to actualize true knowledgable autonomy through critical thinking and dedicated holistic self-work. The social pressure to conform and belong, and subsequent fear of condemnation for dissension is a primary element which retards independent actualization and is the primary characteristic that differentiates “dominance hierarchies“ from “empowerment hierarchies“, where exploration, empathic inquiry, and compassionate understanding are paramount. To the unconscious parts of our mind still rooted in childhood programming, confronting and abandoning the normalized beliefs of a perceived authority raises a deeply rooted fear of abandonment, exile, and death.

We see this reinforced within more complex social institutions (religion, government, etc.) where dissension has LITERALLY resulted in death. This largely unconscious psychological mechanism is often exploited, consciously or unconsciously, within dominance hierarchies to coerce conformity, assimilation, and submission through the manipulation of guilt and shame (often by Sophism or “shadow projections“, as Jung espoused) or by creating social spectacles which instill fear using hostility, threats, and violence to reinforce the “legitimate necessity“ of “security“ in adhering to the collective groupthink Authoritarianism (google the “Stanford Prison Experiment“ for a deeper look at what people are capable of through Authoritarianism). In short, think for yourself. Question authority.

Humberto Braga

This distinction between "dominance hierarchies" and "empowerment hierarchies" is precisely what is being communicated by our intragalactic neighbors by means of empowering channels of communication, rather than by means of dominance-based instrumentalities. The only reason most of us believe there is insufficient evidence of extraterrestrial life is because we have been trained to only pay attention to "authoritative" sources of information and to not notice the more subtle ways by which they communicate with us directly. Most UFO witnesses, and even some alien abductees, sit and wait for government/media "disclosure". Terence McKenna explains this disempowering mindset:

Terence McKenna - Self Experience

"The only real experience that counts, is your own."

On the more extreme nondualistic side of the understanding of hierarchy is Cameron Day:

Every single hierarchical system is a product of the corrupt demiurge's basic structure. At the top you have the Yehova figure, underneath that you have the angels — with the fallen angel, Lucifer, in charge of the dark team and the Gabriels and Michaels in charge of the false light team.

Cameron Day

While these advanced metaphysical concepts are not at all necessary to conceptually grasp and understand the problem of (the belief in) authority, they are important (not to mention fascinating) to consider.

In our true natural state of being, collaboration happens out of love, and coordination thus happens on a synchronistic telempathic level — i.e. in a state of balance between the logical/linear/4D mind represented by the left hemisphere (the divine masculine) and the intuitive/wholistic/5D heart-mind represented by the right hemisphere (the divine feminine).

Authority (control) vs. abundance (flow)

Bashar explains how abundance is, in a sense, the opposite of the belief in authority:

Bashar - Abundance vs. Authority

Authority vs. channeling

As perhaps the most significant example, Bashar explains how perceived authority figures are the main impediment to the spreading of the understanding of the phenomena of channeling:

Bashar – Authority figures as gatekeepers of belief

From Bashar's transmission: Meeting With Bashar (a.k.a. Sex, Drugs & Aliens) (2007-01-19).

The process of channeling, as you're witnessing it now, in terms of my consciousness coming through the person before you, doesn't leave that person out. One of the most important aspects of the channeling is that the channel himself of herself actually also becomes more of their own version of the highest possible person they can be. Thus then, you can leapfrog over the need to actually have an entity speak through you by simply becoming more of yourself every day anywhere. And thus then simply commune with other beings as equals.

The only reason that it exists in this format, in terms of beings speaking through humans on Earth, is because there are still many humans on Earth that will not allow human beings to be able to integrate this way; they will not accept it. They will only accept it from what they perceive to be an "exterior authority figure". And thus then this is a way, of slowly over time getting people used to the idea that you all have this within you — and that is the whole idea, is to be your version of what you believe we are, so that we can meet as equals, not as someone who has "more authority" over you. But that's the way your planet has functioned for thousands of years so it takes a little time for you to get over it — that kind of relationship. But that's alright, we understand that. And therefore we are happy to participate in this particular idea — but you see, the basic reason we are doing this job is to put ourselves out of a job, so that we simply can play together.

Bashar, 2007