What if there is no primary enemy? 
What if it's actually us and each other? It certainly seems like it. "You are your own worst enemy." 

*Society is full of people who think and act like that without even realising it!*

How does Justice welcome those who denied it to you? 

It certainly is at odds with the old paradigm control systems, but I think that is far less important to how naturally it comes to us. Everywhere we look, the spontaneous order of humans talking/living/being close to those they are more aligned with plays out.

I think it all comes back to two key lessons/consciousness shifts:
1. The concept of personal responsibility. Both in a moral sense, and in a creating-your-experience sense.
2. The concept that it is wrong to violate/coerce others.

With those two things in place, it seems like the rest of the societal training would be rapidly [relatively speaking] dissolved in someone's consciousness.

> Statists glued to the official fake news will not be alerted to the existential reality, 

Statists wait, and rue the wisdom of hindsight when the state invariably treats them like the child they were groomed into being. The government should not raise you or anyone!

> **This is an opportunity to transcend the present statist paradigm, and enable folks capable of reason to adopt personal responsibility to secure themselves.**

Yes, i've thought similar but not in terms of transcending or opportunity. Moreso in terms of jamming, short-circuiting and deprogramming. 

Yep, as usual personal responsibility solves the problem quick & easy.

And certainly, the control systems don't want people to take that responsibility; they want people to beg for help, and open the doors to these facial recognition drones and such that China is pushing out.

Honestly, looking at the death rates for Corona, with basically anyone who's not a "boomer" (and not immune-compromised) effectively safe... Sure seems like a good way to shift their "voter" base from folks who remember personal responsibility to 100% snowflake generation :-/

Wowza... that's a lot of response :-)

I'll try to go through piece by piece. It does seem like your quote formatting is off a bit in a couple places, but here we go:

It is interesting how you took this to the problem-reaction-solution place; I was actually referring just to interpersonal politics, the kind that shows up everyone, and not the state/corporate kind. Certainly there is overlap, and people begin to get trained into those ways of responding to things.

*Statism, Usury, War, Child Abuse, Farming:* Yep, sounds like we're on [at least close to] the same page.

> *I'm not so sure about that as I did not experience all the forevers of what humanity had seen previously. But I do support this sentiment, to an extent.*

True, we (actually separately you & I) have literally no way of knowing anything at all about experience before our lives, or even during our lives but outside our personal sphere. Everything is just people's stories, filtered through their biases, beliefs, traumas, and incentives. **However**, we do all get to choose the beliefs that we hold, and those beliefs shape our experience moving forward. It is for that reason (and many data-based reasons) that I choose to hold this belief.

> *Paradigm Shift seems to be pretty narrowly defined compared to the way you used the phrase.*

True. When I use the term, I specifically mean the shift from control/fear paradigm to liberty/love paradigm.

> *All the Utopian-Tech examples stated to prove this epoch-defining paradigm shift for humanity doesn't have much to do with humanity at all in my opinion.*

I see the tech/science changes coming along (3d printing, alternative energies, open source, permaculture, etc.) to not be the cause of humanity's shift, but rather inevitable changes that weaken many of the old control system's key pillars. If the masses aren't dependent on a few middle-men for food, shelter, manufacturing... then they've lost some level of their control, even absent any moral/ethical changes in the masses (though those are happening too.)

> *How can the opportunity for a continuously improving future on Earth be enforced and promised*

Well, I certainly don't want it enforced, as I'm not in favor of force. However, it seems to me that when drastic technological changes happen, they seem to push out into society, and culture just has to adapt. Really, the best way for these things to spread is for individuals to dedicate themselves to it, as with anything else.

> *Your second paragraph resonates with me far more. I can read between the lines where words will not fit, to get the gist of it: loud and clear. However the "old paradigm" doesn't play fair. It wont respect any peaceful, positive internally-focused attempts to make peace - it will exploit it. Overrule the kindness and turn it against us*

First, I think it's important to remember that in a physical sense, the old paradigm is just a couple thousand (at most) people making rules that the masses live by unknowingly. Without soldiers choosing to act immorally for money, the old system collapses in seconds.

There seems to be a clear shift in consciousness, pre-indicated by the astrologies/calendars of the ancient Indians, Mayans, and many more. I don't see any way that a few bullies who've been running things can possibly stop (or even significantly slow) the change that Earth and humanity are going through.

**Consensus**
> *I've seen it work effectively here, amongst my immediate family members and within groups I care to be in and contribute to.*

Exactly, and this is really the highest level that it needs to exist, because decisions shouldn't be made outside of Dunbar's number (imo)

> *I've not seen consensus work in democratic federal and state-based electoral ballots/votes.*

It's not attempted. Democracy is nearly the opposite of consensus.

In consensus, 10 of us sit down to decide something. After a few hours there are 2-3 different groups wanting to take different approaches. So, we keep discussing until there is one agreed upon (or at least not "blocked") course of action, and we follow it.

In democracy, those same 10 people sit down to decide something. As soon as a "majority" agrees on a course of action, the rest no longer have an opinion that matters, and have to go along with the *will of the majority.*

> *Nor in pathologically competitive environments.*

Cooperation & consensus are kind of the opposite end of the spectrum from hyper competitiveness, so it makes sense they wouldn't overlap much.

> *Nor in public arenas or virtual spaces overall.*

I don't know what a public arena is, it sounds like where gladiators fight. Virtual spaces seem like they would act almost identically to physical spaces with the same rules/community.

> *Not sure why would you refer to fictional worlds for your reader to find a parallel to what your ethos proposes.*

Because, the stories we've told/read/experienced are what define our sense of the possible. If one grows up in a statist society, and all the stories they are told either happen in the same world or a more dystopian one, then their imagination has no basis for what something different looks like. I am quite sure that my own open-mindedness, dedication to principles & ethics, and ability to see so many potential futures is almost entirely a result of the massive amounts of fiction I read as a child.

> *They are fictional for a reason, a myriad of different reasons but the main reasons that stick out to me are because they are idealistic, novel & fantastical.*

That's not necessarily true. Much of the very best fiction is quite believable, that's what makes it so engrossing. And certainly in my experience, the great writers (Heinlein, Le Guin, Banks, McLeod, Tolkien, etc) are able to share their ideals, show them in places, and still create worlds/characters/stories that are every bit as flawed & ever-changing as anyone you might meet on the street.

> *OK, this is intriguing to me. I can envisage hidden history, etymology and non-fiction being of the same spiritual benefit to the emancipation of our minds as your 3 examples.*

Right. It's all about stories. The stories you have in your head help set the boundaries of your experience. If someone has read *1984* & *Brave New World*, watched *Hunger Games* & *Logan's Run*, but has never explored a [fictional] world where voluntaryism/anarchism is the foundation, or even where things just head more in the direction of liberty... they're going to have a hard time helping create that world.

Thanks for dropping in :-)
Looking forward to discussing further.