(1)
OWS: 'Occupy Wall Street to Obama: Don't Be Big Banks' Puppet; No Immunity Deal for Crooks' (5/11)
kibitzer November 6
Go for real change, OWS. Build on your non-violent base, and refusal to be painted into a simple left-wing box; ie, expecting to find a solution on the same level as the problem.
Now that the historical process has gone global, humanity can enthrone their better natures. The answer to the current dilemma - and to its systemic roots - is to do away with interest-bearing money altogether. (We don't REALLY want the moneychangers running the world, do we??)
All people need, to give to a system of their time and labor, is a motive. The profit motive is one; and its concomitant reward in personal aggrandizement. But it's only one motive; and a relatively rudimentary one at that. Hardly befitting of a mature race of beings, with, now, a good level of technology, capable of providing enough, in goods and services, for all, with a proper husbanding of resources.
And the socialist model is also one, of producing 'for use, not for profit'. And it would seem to be a more sensible system, especially now, with the capitalist system's need for constant growth placing such a terrible burden on the planet's resources, and causing so much environmental havoc, with its insatiable need for markets and such, like a bicycler pedaling furiously in order to keep upright. But 'been there; done that': the socialist system has been found wanting every place it has been tried. Why?
Because it has been wedded to a command and control system of governance - organization, and power wielding, from the top down. Not the bottom up; from The People. And not with a sufficient take on the 'human nature thing'. Treating the human being merely as a 'clever mammal' (or worse: as a 'killer ape', and so needing to be controlled strenuously).
I've got a better idea. How about treating us humans as 'spiritual beings having a human experience'. And thus, with a higher part of our natures, just waiting to be harnessed, to produce a system wherein The People share their goods and services - and give of their best in the process - out of a higher motive for doing. Out of the highest there is: out of gratitude to their Creator for life with meaning. So that the system runs on, in a word: Love.
Oh! - but that would require...what. Believing in a religion? No. Just accepting our fundamental nature, as - in an expression - 'not of this world'. 'This world' being just one realm, one dimension, of possibly many; as our modern-day scientists are telling us, about 'the nature of reality' - as accurately as they can, at least, with their current set of instruments, and level of deductive reasoning.
I'm not asking anybody to 'believe' in anything. I'm asking everybody to wake up, and realize that we have been involved in a play, wherein 'we' take on many parts - now a prince, now a pauper; now male, now female; now of one race or nationality or religion, now another - in order to...what.
To grow up. In wisdom, and compassion. And now we're ready for graduate school; on lovely old, beleaguered old, planet Earth. Now asking of us our best.
It's a crowning moment. Let's take it. And good on you, OWS, for helping us do so. [get there]
(2) To: wouldsocialismwork.com
[N.B. This site has a very uncompromising take on a socialistic model - not just a system without money, and everything held in common, but work being purely voluntary.]
kibitzer 7/11
Thank you, Gus, for setting up this forum. These are important questions, that need to be considered, especially with the straits that the world is in these days. Consideration of alternatives is a legitimate exercise.
My two cents' worth. (1) I see the society of the future as having tokens representing value - 'it' can even be called money; just not in the classical definition, ie, of interest-bearing money. Rather, more like a LETS system - for services rendered to the system; so that individuals can accumulate those tokens towards 'purchase' of things that by their nature are not available to everybody; eg, a beachfront property in Southern California*. (Although I like your idea of time sharing; in some of these sorts of situations.) People can spend their tokens any way they wish to. But this requires them to give service for services rendered to them in return. The system runs on Love; but practical Love. (Loafers need not apply.) And speaking of:
(2) Such a system can't/won't take place in a moral vacuum. The trouble with classical socialism is that it doesn't provide any real reason for people to be 'good'. In its rejection of 'religion' it throws the baby out with the bathwater. The reason why it will/could work is by offering a motive other than/greater than the current one of profit. Just offering a feel-good reason - wouldn't it be nice if people were nice to each other, and would do all things for each other - doesn't cut it. Either there is a purpose to the whole shebang of life, or there is not. If there is not - ie, nothing to life beyond just in and for itself only - then nothing really matters anyway, and we are simply wasting our time discussing such what-ifs. (The killer ape will, eventually, rule, in that vacuum.) If there is, however, then certain things follow. It follows, for one thing, that we have a legitimate, and intelligent, and powerful, motive for human behavior and activity; and thus the system will - could - work on the definitive motive of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning. On, in a word: Love.
Now THAT sort of society could - would - work. Absent that real reason for being - that there is a Plan in and Purpose to life, beyond just a state of human comfort - I really wouldn't hold out much hope for your proposed society. That one really would be Utopian - ie, not "viable". And I don't wish you well on the waste of time devoted to its promulgation. Except as a point of consideration, in getting to the real thing - the true Synthesis of the historical process that humanity has been engaged in. Which is just waiting for us to get to it.
So let's get to it. [As in: enough beating around the burning bush.]
[* which had been referenced in his reply to a poster, as a question regarding how to deal with such things]
A few points, especially regarding (2) above.
+ TINA - There Is No Alternative - is not alive and well any longer. So the greedy money grubbers - worshipping at the altar of Mammon - can just put their smirks away.
+ I can't emphasise enough what key element the 'alternative' - the change - requires: a raising of consciousness, beyond the current level of consciousness. Gus, and others advocating a socialistic model, seem to think that the prospect of a cushy life is reason enough for it to work. They seem not to be fully aware of the extent of 'human nature' in any such a model, sans a real reason for being. This attitude seems to be due to an educational system that has inculcated the idea in its students that most things are essentially 'nurture' in nature - environmentally induced and encoded. Thus the feminist belief that there is no real difference in the sexes; and thus the Marxist-Leninist belief in The New Soviet Man. If only. (I'll return to this matter of our 'human nature', and its full extent, in a moment.) Somewhat similar to this point, but taking it a step further:
+ I can't emphasise enough how important a full, complete understanding of 'life' is to a successful transformation into a new model of society on Earth.
I repeat: Either there is a 'God' - something more than Man; a transcendent aspect to Man - or there is not. If there is not, then nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live exclusively for oneself (& one's family) - independent of the effect of that pursuit on others - as not; for the end of the closed system of life can, then, as easily be seen as that as anything else, a presumed evolutionary advantage to a certain degree of cooperation, or whatever. If there is, however, then certain things follow. It follows, for one area of consideration, that there is Plan in and Purpose to the life experience - and it would behoove us to find out what that Plan and Purpose package is. That's number one. And number two: If there is, then we need to stop being silly - caught up in, mesmerized by, the play we are in - have created, to amuse ourselves; like a video game - and start 'acting' as if it were indeed true. Not as if it were not, as we are doing at present. And have done, for long enough.
In 1976 - the year I joined a spiritual community; to try to further the evolution of consciousness on this planet as best I could (and to be with like-minded others in the process) - Zecharia Sitchin had his first book on the origins of civilization on the planet published. It was - is - called 'The 12th Planet', and it chronicled, from the records left behind by the civilization we know as Sumer, the story of our beginnings as Homo sapiens.* It was the Missing Link, for me, and for science - if 'they' had bothered checking it out. But 'they' were too involved in playing their parts in the human drama, to understand that that was all that they were doing. We have suffered enough, from 'their' oversight.**
It is the missing piece to our story on this planet. We had already known about the phenomenon we call reincarnation - and have added immensely to that knowledge in the years since I personally first came across it in depth, in my research on such matters in the New York Public Library in 1955-56. But we hadn't known, except for the account in Genesis in the Old Testament - which seems rather fairytale-like - of our human origins. How did our souls - our individuated sparks of Divinity, growing in consciousness through lifetimes after lifetimes (and accruing and discharging karma in the process) - get encased in these bodies that we inhabit for a time, on this material level of existence?? Yes, we COULD have started as one-celled organisms, and worked our way up through all the kingdoms of Nature, to this particular state of individuation; but there was something tantalizing in the Genesis account of our origins, that leaped us from such lowly beginnings, to the form we are in now. Yes, the model has aspects of being a 'clever mammal' - and yes, has the capacity, the potential, of being a 'killer ape'. But it was obvious that we were more, much more, than that...
I won't belabour the point. I am just saying that, left alone with our material vehicle, and having lost contact with our transcendent aspect, we could, and will, do terrible things, as we play the parts of territorial apes - but always with that other consciousness lurking in the background of our being; telling us - nagging us - that what we are doing, more often than not, is wrong.
It's time to let that part of our makeup - our 'human nature' - come to the fore, and take over. Acknowledging our true Source.
That we come, not only from the earth, and from the stars. But beyond.
---
* The story of that unfolding, in a nutshell, in Sitchin's own words:
"I was a schoolboy, privileged to study the Bible in its original language, Hebrew. We reached the story of the Great Flood in the book of Genesis, where it is stated that it was at that time that the Nefilim were upon the Earth, who went on to marry the daughters of Man. The teacher explained that the story speaks of giants who were then upon the Earth. I raised my hand and pointed out that the word literally meant those who have descended, who have come down (in the context) from the heavens to Earth. For that, instead of being complimented, I was reprimanded. 'You don't question the Bible!' the teacher roared..."
Ah. We have been fighting that battle for a long time. The battle with our teachers; who are the experts, and who are we, the pupils, to question them???
Vanity. It will kill us yet.
(Hopefully not.)
** 'They', of course, are just 'us', playing a different part. A different facet of 'us'. 'We' being one another. Over and over. Until 'we' get, that We Are One. And become One again, with our Source.
Which We already Are. The little 'we' just has a ways to go, yet.
But 'we' are getting there...
(the quote of Sitchin's from 'Of Heaven and Earth: Essays Presented at the First Sitchin Studies Day. Introduced and Edited by Zecharia Sitchin.' The Book Tree, Escondido, CA; 1996)
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Friday, 4 November 2011
On Christianity
Some reflections on this subject triggered by a blog on a 'liberal' billboard apparently mistakingly quoting Jefferson on the subject of Christianity. (Who, it would appear from the historical record, 'believed' in the moral precepts of 'Christ', but not the magical bits of the story; going so far as to cut-and-paste his own, 'Jefferson Bible'.)
Godfather Politics: 'Atheist Group Misquotes Jefferson on Billboard' - Da Tagliare 2/11
kibitzer3 3/11 [my comment to Brama]
"The scriptures" have not stood the test of centuries, Brama. When I started studying this matter seriously over 50 years ago - "this matter" of Christianity in particular and religions in general - I came across considerable research pointing to weaknesses in all the 'stories'. But the average person doesn't read research books. The carrying culture carries the day, all too often. A shame. That attitude needs to change. That is what The Enlightenment was supposed to be all about: science and reason would prevail. As it should. And I don't refer to dogmatic science. That is as bad as the Catholic Church trying to hold back the impulse to Truth (about the workings of the solar system). Which should be behind all of our human actions. And as it works its way through the stonework of many accepted beliefs, it will uncover an ultimate Truth: well expressed by a son of the Catholic Church, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his observation that "we are spiritual beings having a human experience". That truth, that awareness, we can ALL rally around. Or should. The times cry out for that common understanding, of what life is all about. All else is secondary, or man-made.
[my 2nd reply (ie, after my initial comment) to Brama] 3/11
I mean no disrespect, Brama. As a seeker of truth, I keep an open mind, and I see that you have read a fair amount in this matter, and I fully support those who don't take a set of beliefs purely on face value. In that spirit, I encourage you to inspect your premises further regarding the NT - and the OT also, for that matter; but for right now, we're talking about the truth, or not, of the NT, as an historical record of actual events. And a true seeker of truth will soon find that there is considerable evidence that the NT is a mishmash of material that bears little resemblance to historical truth. Or Truth itself.
For example. In our day and age, we have had the benefit of considerable evidence for the truth of reincarnation, ie, our souls experience lifetimes until we 'get it right' - clear our karma, so that we can move on in the higher realms. I fully accept the Case for a Creator, based on hard evidence; and that evidence would lead one to conclude, logically, that behind the whole shebang of life is a Plan, and Purpose; and that all could logically lead one to conclude that the best descriptive quality to give to what is behind all that would be, in a word, Love. All deductible, based on evidence. [deducible]
Religions are about beliefs. We need to move beyond beliefs, into the realm of facts. And the truth shall set us free.
Incidentally, as to your comment about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: his wise observations led him to make this comment as well: "Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides, and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then, for a second time in the history of the world, humanity will have discovered fire." It was in 1934 that he was inspired to write this. He wrote it for our day and age. We are about to ignite the world with the fire of Love; those energies to be harnessed to show ourselves what magic we can perform in the name of Truth - the Truth that we can all believe in, regardless of our various religions and political ideologies. It's a grand time to be alive, and bear witness to this conflagration in the human heart; leaving the old gods behind.
[my reply to Mark] 3/11
With all due respect for your reading of the historical process, Mark, I read that record a different way. I read it as having brought us (actually, where we have brought ourselves; and I DO mean 'us') to the point in time where and when we can leave the old forms - of all kinds - behind, and create a society wherein we share our goods and services with one [an]other, and give of our best in the process, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning (see my reply to Brama above). Thus we are at a peak point of our process, of human life on Earth; learning to live in and by Love. And anyone who has really studied history could well know this.
Incidentally, the name 'kibitzer' really doesn't have to do with being a deceiver. It has to do with lobbing in sometimes unwanted advice - what is sometimes taken as 'unwanted'. Aka [known as] a bit of a troublemaker, at times. Somebody who stirs up the pot. Anyway, that is my tongue-in-cheek take on it, and what I mean by its use. [unasked for advice]
[my 3rd reply to Brama] 4/11
First of all, re my 'a mishmash of material' comment:
What the world knows as ‘Christianity’ has been an elaborate con job, a hoax apparently mostly on the part of Saul of Tarsus. (Who may also have been the Jewish historian Josephus, according to the research of one Ralph Ellis, correlating the curious similarities between their two life stories. But that’s another story.) It was based on a feature of the day, regarding itinerant preachers (called presbyters), who told elaborate and fanciful tales of nonsense to the gullible, for a livelihood. Examples in the record. There WAS an historical figure at the time, that the later Christian church was based on; but he apparently had very little resemblance to the image worshipped by later 'believers'.
Read the likes of Ralph Ellis and Tony Bushby, in our day. (As to the latter: his ‘The Bible Fraud’, ‘The Secret in the Bible’, and ‘The Crucifixion of Truth’; the first of which contains the quote, from Pope Leo X: “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us”.) In the day of my early research into the murky origins of this religion, it was the work in particular of some German scholars, whose research into the literature led them to the same conclusion as these more modern-day researchers: that ‘Christianity’ was based on various fables of the time, about fertility gods (like Tammuz), and such; being buried in a tomb (of the earth) for three days, and then resurrecting; etc etc.
As a kibitzer, I’m an irritant to the people concentrating on playing the game (of illusory reality) right in front of their eyes. ‘My mind’s made up - don’t confuse me with the facts.’ But we need to be confused - confounded - with the facts. Life needs to move on, to a proper conclusion, in celebration of the Most High - of our Source, Who gave us the wherewithal in which to move and live and have our separate being - ie, the realm of free will - in order ultimately to choose to return to the house of our Father.
At which point we become One [fully] again with that loving Source. Loving, and as you say: Holy.
(Read more: Atheist Group Misquotes Jefferson on Billboard | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1814/atheist-group-misquotes-jefferson-on-billboard/#ixzz1ce1qlwnS)
N.B. On this subject: Many ears ago now I spent some hours in a bookshop in London (Covent Garden) reading a book about Paul, particularly how he 'went off to Arabia' and came back with his 'take' on the 'Jesus' story. I don't recall what caused him to be so inspired in the first place. And I know, from some books on the Essenes, that he was in basic conflict with the brother of Jesus about all this. But that's all another story, too.
Godfather Politics: 'Atheist Group Misquotes Jefferson on Billboard' - Da Tagliare 2/11
kibitzer3 3/11 [my comment to Brama]
"The scriptures" have not stood the test of centuries, Brama. When I started studying this matter seriously over 50 years ago - "this matter" of Christianity in particular and religions in general - I came across considerable research pointing to weaknesses in all the 'stories'. But the average person doesn't read research books. The carrying culture carries the day, all too often. A shame. That attitude needs to change. That is what The Enlightenment was supposed to be all about: science and reason would prevail. As it should. And I don't refer to dogmatic science. That is as bad as the Catholic Church trying to hold back the impulse to Truth (about the workings of the solar system). Which should be behind all of our human actions. And as it works its way through the stonework of many accepted beliefs, it will uncover an ultimate Truth: well expressed by a son of the Catholic Church, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his observation that "we are spiritual beings having a human experience". That truth, that awareness, we can ALL rally around. Or should. The times cry out for that common understanding, of what life is all about. All else is secondary, or man-made.
[my 2nd reply (ie, after my initial comment) to Brama] 3/11
I mean no disrespect, Brama. As a seeker of truth, I keep an open mind, and I see that you have read a fair amount in this matter, and I fully support those who don't take a set of beliefs purely on face value. In that spirit, I encourage you to inspect your premises further regarding the NT - and the OT also, for that matter; but for right now, we're talking about the truth, or not, of the NT, as an historical record of actual events. And a true seeker of truth will soon find that there is considerable evidence that the NT is a mishmash of material that bears little resemblance to historical truth. Or Truth itself.
For example. In our day and age, we have had the benefit of considerable evidence for the truth of reincarnation, ie, our souls experience lifetimes until we 'get it right' - clear our karma, so that we can move on in the higher realms. I fully accept the Case for a Creator, based on hard evidence; and that evidence would lead one to conclude, logically, that behind the whole shebang of life is a Plan, and Purpose; and that all could logically lead one to conclude that the best descriptive quality to give to what is behind all that would be, in a word, Love. All deductible, based on evidence. [deducible]
Religions are about beliefs. We need to move beyond beliefs, into the realm of facts. And the truth shall set us free.
Incidentally, as to your comment about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: his wise observations led him to make this comment as well: "Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides, and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then, for a second time in the history of the world, humanity will have discovered fire." It was in 1934 that he was inspired to write this. He wrote it for our day and age. We are about to ignite the world with the fire of Love; those energies to be harnessed to show ourselves what magic we can perform in the name of Truth - the Truth that we can all believe in, regardless of our various religions and political ideologies. It's a grand time to be alive, and bear witness to this conflagration in the human heart; leaving the old gods behind.
[my reply to Mark] 3/11
With all due respect for your reading of the historical process, Mark, I read that record a different way. I read it as having brought us (actually, where we have brought ourselves; and I DO mean 'us') to the point in time where and when we can leave the old forms - of all kinds - behind, and create a society wherein we share our goods and services with one [an]other, and give of our best in the process, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning (see my reply to Brama above). Thus we are at a peak point of our process, of human life on Earth; learning to live in and by Love. And anyone who has really studied history could well know this.
Incidentally, the name 'kibitzer' really doesn't have to do with being a deceiver. It has to do with lobbing in sometimes unwanted advice - what is sometimes taken as 'unwanted'. Aka [known as] a bit of a troublemaker, at times. Somebody who stirs up the pot. Anyway, that is my tongue-in-cheek take on it, and what I mean by its use. [unasked for advice]
[my 3rd reply to Brama] 4/11
First of all, re my 'a mishmash of material' comment:
What the world knows as ‘Christianity’ has been an elaborate con job, a hoax apparently mostly on the part of Saul of Tarsus. (Who may also have been the Jewish historian Josephus, according to the research of one Ralph Ellis, correlating the curious similarities between their two life stories. But that’s another story.) It was based on a feature of the day, regarding itinerant preachers (called presbyters), who told elaborate and fanciful tales of nonsense to the gullible, for a livelihood. Examples in the record. There WAS an historical figure at the time, that the later Christian church was based on; but he apparently had very little resemblance to the image worshipped by later 'believers'.
Read the likes of Ralph Ellis and Tony Bushby, in our day. (As to the latter: his ‘The Bible Fraud’, ‘The Secret in the Bible’, and ‘The Crucifixion of Truth’; the first of which contains the quote, from Pope Leo X: “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us”.) In the day of my early research into the murky origins of this religion, it was the work in particular of some German scholars, whose research into the literature led them to the same conclusion as these more modern-day researchers: that ‘Christianity’ was based on various fables of the time, about fertility gods (like Tammuz), and such; being buried in a tomb (of the earth) for three days, and then resurrecting; etc etc.
As a kibitzer, I’m an irritant to the people concentrating on playing the game (of illusory reality) right in front of their eyes. ‘My mind’s made up - don’t confuse me with the facts.’ But we need to be confused - confounded - with the facts. Life needs to move on, to a proper conclusion, in celebration of the Most High - of our Source, Who gave us the wherewithal in which to move and live and have our separate being - ie, the realm of free will - in order ultimately to choose to return to the house of our Father.
At which point we become One [fully] again with that loving Source. Loving, and as you say: Holy.
(Read more: Atheist Group Misquotes Jefferson on Billboard | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1814/atheist-group-misquotes-jefferson-on-billboard/#ixzz1ce1qlwnS)
N.B. On this subject: Many ears ago now I spent some hours in a bookshop in London (Covent Garden) reading a book about Paul, particularly how he 'went off to Arabia' and came back with his 'take' on the 'Jesus' story. I don't recall what caused him to be so inspired in the first place. And I know, from some books on the Essenes, that he was in basic conflict with the brother of Jesus about all this. But that's all another story, too.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
And the drama continues...
People, people...You still have your eyes so glued to what is going on on the stage of life that you can't see it for what it is; that it is a drama, taking place on a stage. A very real-looking stage, but a stage nevertheless. And you are so caught up in your current parts that you can't see, and feel, that that is all that they are: current parts, in this ongoing drama, taking place on planet Earth. Where people have been killing people, and hurting 'others', long enough. For lack of understanding what the play is all about. Well, it's time to break the spell, and see things clearly for what they are. Including our - seemingly - separate selves.
I have worked up a couple of one-page essays, or blogs, on this subject. The first:
We Are One Another
The main thing we need to look at in our time is who we are in relation to each other. We Are One Another. We are playing parts, over and over again, until we ‘get it right’ - work out our karma towards each other, and then move on. Thus, today’s prince is tomorrow’s pauper, and so on; lifetime after lifetime.
Which brings up the concept of a Plan. Which brings up also the concept of a Purpose.
Consider. Either there is a ‘God’ - something more than Man - or there is not. If there is not, then nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live exclusively for oneself, independent of the effect of that pursuit on others, as not; for the end of the closed system of life could, then, as easily be seen as that as anything else, a presumed evolutionary advantage in working in cooperation with others, or whatever. If there is, however, then certain things follow. Among them are the above-named qualities: Plan in and Purpose to life. Which gives it ultimate meaning.
We are now faced with this fact, and ultimate decision. My message to humanity:
You are living life as if there were no God - nothing more than Man. This is silly. You are living a lie. We need to start living on this lovely but beleaguered planet as if there were something more than Man. As there is plenty of evidence to attest to. In which case, we can have - make - a major change in how we live our lives. A major change in the form of our society; which we call our ‘economies’. And the key change in that evolutionary process is to do away with money.
At least, money as we have known it; for long enough. For too long, now, considering what is going in our day and age, when we are experiencing, in spades, the truth of the observation that capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Its ‘internal contradictions,’ in the words and tenets of Karl Marx. Who had a pretty good ‘take’ on the this matter, of economics and social structures. He just didn’t carry his analysis of civilizational development far enough, is all; stopped short of the real capstone to the pyramid of human endeavour.
Which is the kingdom of heaven on Earth. Just waiting in the wings, for us to inherit it.
What will that take? Recognition. Of the time. And of our true, to say higher, selves. Yes, we have, as part of our natures, that of being a ‘clever mammal’. And we are more, much more, than that. As identified nicely in the expression: ‘We are spiritual beings having a human experience.’
I am not happy that people are not living up to their potential. Come on, people. We have work to do, to transform this planet into a Garden of Eden; where we recognise who and what we truly are. Have that knowledge; and act accordingly.
---
So what do we do now, practically? No. 2:
WHAT NOW
What now. It’s very simple. ‘It’ - our direction - is based on the premise that life has Purpose and that Purpose is Good. That life has meaning, beyond just in and for itself only. And therein you have the only motive you need for people to share their goods and services with one another, and give of their best in doing so: out of gratitude to their Creator for life with meaning.
Is there any evidence for the validity of this premise? Indeed there is. Not only in the intimations of a spiritual nature over the centuries in individuals’ experiences, but in the highly evidential reports of such as NDEs and OBEs - proving, or at least indicating, that there is a component of Mind separate from the brain - and especially in people’s (including children) experiences of the truth of what is called reincarnation: people’s awarenesses of previous lives, that some part of them has experienced. And thus the proof of Plan in and Purpose to the life experience. There is intrinsically in that phenomenon a Plan; and the Purpose can easily be inferred: for the individuals to grow in consciousness from their experiences, and choices. Ultimately, I would submit, to ‘grow’ back into Oneness; to Unity; the better for the experience. Better in the sense of having experienced its opposite, of autonomy.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear. And let’s get to work, to bring a better world into being. A world predicated on the premise that we are all One. Coming back into our basic Oneness from our sojourn in separation. In individuation. In exploring Choice.
In terms of the classic story: the Prodigal Son, returning to the house of his Father. A mighty cause for celebration. And then taking their next steps, together, as a united entity.
And by entering into this New Order of the Ages - which entails, and requires, the giving up of money as it has been known, with its concomitant motivating force of the making of something called a profit - we leave the lower grades of the school of life behind, and head more singlemindedly towards graduation. Which is, after all, the point of the exercise.
Not the whole point. Obviously, part of the point is the experience itself, and the richness of awareness to be gained in the classroom. But at some point in the individuated consciousness that is the present You, that proves to be mere illusion; essentially, a distraction. At which point, of gained consciousness, the only thing that will be of true satisfaction is the returning Home; and the leaving of the realm of play-acting behind.
For the real, essential Thing-in-Itself.
Not the Creation. But the Creator; and Oneness with the All That Is. In a permanent state of Bliss. Where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt.
---
I read the work of some 'futurists', who seem to be enamoured of the idea of 'immortality' - of material-level longevity. That is not to understand the nature of the exercise. The exercise is to grow in consciousness; and then move on. Not stay stuck in the cloak of skin, that currently houses us. It is simply that in which we currently move and live and have our being. It is our home away from home. Earth herself is our home away from home.
It's time to break the spell, and return to our true home; having done our home work. And thereby having grown back into Unity, from separation.
Been there. Done that. Ultimately unsatisfying. Come on, folks. Let's get with the programme. We've caused ourselves enough pain, to last a lifetime. Or to say: lifetimes. On the wheel of rebirth. It's time to get off it. Not get off on it.
Tempus fugit.
I have worked up a couple of one-page essays, or blogs, on this subject. The first:
We Are One Another
The main thing we need to look at in our time is who we are in relation to each other. We Are One Another. We are playing parts, over and over again, until we ‘get it right’ - work out our karma towards each other, and then move on. Thus, today’s prince is tomorrow’s pauper, and so on; lifetime after lifetime.
Which brings up the concept of a Plan. Which brings up also the concept of a Purpose.
Consider. Either there is a ‘God’ - something more than Man - or there is not. If there is not, then nothing really matters anyway, and one might as well live exclusively for oneself, independent of the effect of that pursuit on others, as not; for the end of the closed system of life could, then, as easily be seen as that as anything else, a presumed evolutionary advantage in working in cooperation with others, or whatever. If there is, however, then certain things follow. Among them are the above-named qualities: Plan in and Purpose to life. Which gives it ultimate meaning.
We are now faced with this fact, and ultimate decision. My message to humanity:
You are living life as if there were no God - nothing more than Man. This is silly. You are living a lie. We need to start living on this lovely but beleaguered planet as if there were something more than Man. As there is plenty of evidence to attest to. In which case, we can have - make - a major change in how we live our lives. A major change in the form of our society; which we call our ‘economies’. And the key change in that evolutionary process is to do away with money.
At least, money as we have known it; for long enough. For too long, now, considering what is going in our day and age, when we are experiencing, in spades, the truth of the observation that capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Its ‘internal contradictions,’ in the words and tenets of Karl Marx. Who had a pretty good ‘take’ on the this matter, of economics and social structures. He just didn’t carry his analysis of civilizational development far enough, is all; stopped short of the real capstone to the pyramid of human endeavour.
Which is the kingdom of heaven on Earth. Just waiting in the wings, for us to inherit it.
What will that take? Recognition. Of the time. And of our true, to say higher, selves. Yes, we have, as part of our natures, that of being a ‘clever mammal’. And we are more, much more, than that. As identified nicely in the expression: ‘We are spiritual beings having a human experience.’
I am not happy that people are not living up to their potential. Come on, people. We have work to do, to transform this planet into a Garden of Eden; where we recognise who and what we truly are. Have that knowledge; and act accordingly.
---
So what do we do now, practically? No. 2:
WHAT NOW
What now. It’s very simple. ‘It’ - our direction - is based on the premise that life has Purpose and that Purpose is Good. That life has meaning, beyond just in and for itself only. And therein you have the only motive you need for people to share their goods and services with one another, and give of their best in doing so: out of gratitude to their Creator for life with meaning.
Is there any evidence for the validity of this premise? Indeed there is. Not only in the intimations of a spiritual nature over the centuries in individuals’ experiences, but in the highly evidential reports of such as NDEs and OBEs - proving, or at least indicating, that there is a component of Mind separate from the brain - and especially in people’s (including children) experiences of the truth of what is called reincarnation: people’s awarenesses of previous lives, that some part of them has experienced. And thus the proof of Plan in and Purpose to the life experience. There is intrinsically in that phenomenon a Plan; and the Purpose can easily be inferred: for the individuals to grow in consciousness from their experiences, and choices. Ultimately, I would submit, to ‘grow’ back into Oneness; to Unity; the better for the experience. Better in the sense of having experienced its opposite, of autonomy.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear. And let’s get to work, to bring a better world into being. A world predicated on the premise that we are all One. Coming back into our basic Oneness from our sojourn in separation. In individuation. In exploring Choice.
In terms of the classic story: the Prodigal Son, returning to the house of his Father. A mighty cause for celebration. And then taking their next steps, together, as a united entity.
And by entering into this New Order of the Ages - which entails, and requires, the giving up of money as it has been known, with its concomitant motivating force of the making of something called a profit - we leave the lower grades of the school of life behind, and head more singlemindedly towards graduation. Which is, after all, the point of the exercise.
Not the whole point. Obviously, part of the point is the experience itself, and the richness of awareness to be gained in the classroom. But at some point in the individuated consciousness that is the present You, that proves to be mere illusion; essentially, a distraction. At which point, of gained consciousness, the only thing that will be of true satisfaction is the returning Home; and the leaving of the realm of play-acting behind.
For the real, essential Thing-in-Itself.
Not the Creation. But the Creator; and Oneness with the All That Is. In a permanent state of Bliss. Where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt.
---
I read the work of some 'futurists', who seem to be enamoured of the idea of 'immortality' - of material-level longevity. That is not to understand the nature of the exercise. The exercise is to grow in consciousness; and then move on. Not stay stuck in the cloak of skin, that currently houses us. It is simply that in which we currently move and live and have our being. It is our home away from home. Earth herself is our home away from home.
It's time to break the spell, and return to our true home; having done our home work. And thereby having grown back into Unity, from separation.
Been there. Done that. Ultimately unsatisfying. Come on, folks. Let's get with the programme. We've caused ourselves enough pain, to last a lifetime. Or to say: lifetimes. On the wheel of rebirth. It's time to get off it. Not get off on it.
Tempus fugit.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Music To My Ears
Over half a century ago, after having left university to start a serious search for answers to and about life, I was in the Hollywood Bowl one evening, listening to a classical music concert under the stars, when I got thinking about the favelas in Rio, which were in the news at the time, for whatever reason. There was such a disconnection between those two worlds; my living such a rich-environment life in southern California, and the poor in the rickety favela ‘homes’ climbing up the hillsides in that distant country, and city. But instantly, through the music - too, reaching for the heavens - I realized the connection between our worlds.
Human culture. Principally, music.
An international language. If not the international language.
It also reminded me of my somewhat painful attempts to engage in the world of music, when my mother, unbeknownst to me, organized for me to learn how to play a musical instrument. Somehow ‘it’ turned out to be the clarinet; and I played it dutifully from then - I was in about the fifth grade at the time - through junior high, when I gave it up upon entering high school, and being too involved in other things to continue with it. I was not a bad clarinet player - I succeeded in becoming first chair in my junior high school orchestra - but it, simply, wasn’t my cup of tea. I was not a natural. Now basketball; that was a different story...
But back to this story. Sitting there in the open air, being bathed in the notes and harmonies of a first-class orchestra, I realised the value of music in bringing us humans together, in common cause, of creating a better world together than the one we were living in. There were far too many in poverty around the world. There was something wrong with The System; and I would find myself, some years later, finally realising - really getting - what that was. It was money. Specifically, interest-bearing money.
This was not the way to make music together, I thought. We need to get our act together better, I thought further. Not, that it would be nice if we did. But that we needed to. It was imperative, for our wellbeing, that we did; and for that of the planet. Gaia, our home away from home: beginning to hurt terribly from our treating her ungraciously, even at that stage. As I say, this was over half a century ago, now.
And it’s now time to do something about it. Because we don’t have much more time, before it will be too late, to wake up, and realise that we have been living in a dream. A dream of producing more and more stuff, that isn’t basically needed, in order to continue to grow - and produce even more unnecessary stuff - which isn’t the answer to the future. The answer to the future is to blend our instruments, and create harmonious music. Not discord.
And a good way to get to that answer would be to help the poor have access to the wherewithal to make music. That we can blend our instruments that way; metaphorically. But also truly. For we have all been written into the same piece of music by the same Composer. And it’s time to do Him, and ourselves, the honour of holding a great concert, on planet Earth, beneath the same stars that shine upon us all.
Come let us join our many golden flickerings, and create one life; together. Forever. - in the words of a song by the New Troubadours (‘Change Can Come’). That note sounded almost forty years ago, now.
It really is time.
Stan
28 October 2011
Human culture. Principally, music.
An international language. If not the international language.
It also reminded me of my somewhat painful attempts to engage in the world of music, when my mother, unbeknownst to me, organized for me to learn how to play a musical instrument. Somehow ‘it’ turned out to be the clarinet; and I played it dutifully from then - I was in about the fifth grade at the time - through junior high, when I gave it up upon entering high school, and being too involved in other things to continue with it. I was not a bad clarinet player - I succeeded in becoming first chair in my junior high school orchestra - but it, simply, wasn’t my cup of tea. I was not a natural. Now basketball; that was a different story...
But back to this story. Sitting there in the open air, being bathed in the notes and harmonies of a first-class orchestra, I realised the value of music in bringing us humans together, in common cause, of creating a better world together than the one we were living in. There were far too many in poverty around the world. There was something wrong with The System; and I would find myself, some years later, finally realising - really getting - what that was. It was money. Specifically, interest-bearing money.
This was not the way to make music together, I thought. We need to get our act together better, I thought further. Not, that it would be nice if we did. But that we needed to. It was imperative, for our wellbeing, that we did; and for that of the planet. Gaia, our home away from home: beginning to hurt terribly from our treating her ungraciously, even at that stage. As I say, this was over half a century ago, now.
And it’s now time to do something about it. Because we don’t have much more time, before it will be too late, to wake up, and realise that we have been living in a dream. A dream of producing more and more stuff, that isn’t basically needed, in order to continue to grow - and produce even more unnecessary stuff - which isn’t the answer to the future. The answer to the future is to blend our instruments, and create harmonious music. Not discord.
And a good way to get to that answer would be to help the poor have access to the wherewithal to make music. That we can blend our instruments that way; metaphorically. But also truly. For we have all been written into the same piece of music by the same Composer. And it’s time to do Him, and ourselves, the honour of holding a great concert, on planet Earth, beneath the same stars that shine upon us all.
Come let us join our many golden flickerings, and create one life; together. Forever. - in the words of a song by the New Troubadours (‘Change Can Come’). That note sounded almost forty years ago, now.
It really is time.
Stan
28 October 2011
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Just because the subject is up...
"Fury as councils to axe free places in private nurseries" (title to an article in The (Glasgow) Herald of 17 October)
Ah. The old Tinstaafl debate...
I have a very hard time with 'freebies', and that mentality. The mentality of 'entitlements'. If that mindset is all that I had known in life, I might understand better why people have so easily gotten brainwashed by it. It would - could easily - seem so 'natural' to them. But it's only natural in socialist-like settings.
I am an American. I came to the UK (Scotland) as an adult, so I didn't grow up in this sort of culture, of 'entitlements'. Perhaps that is why it rubs me so much 'the wrong way' - like, raw.
My position: No one is 'entitled' as a matter of 'right' to the earnings of any other person. That is theft. Not so pure, and not so simple - we do pay taxes to cover community-wide services like roads and public transport and police and fire services, and so forth. And yes - public education. And the latter is obviously where this business, of the attitude of social 'benefits', stemmed from. But it has become the proverbial foot in the door, for more, and more, and more 'entitlements' to muscle their way through to the public trough. And soon, it gets out of hand. As could have been seen, by anybody with eyes to see. It would have taken some very astute observers, and politicians, to keep a lid on the matter - a stopper on the door, to keep it from being widened more and more; as more and more people voted more and more money out of other people's pockets.
Oh yes, they were taxpayers, too, to start with. And it was the idea of a 'national insurance tax' to start with. But then the mentality of pure 'entitlement', and also of 'soak the rich', comes into play; and many people do get seduced by the idea of getting 'something for nothing'.
The welfare mentality...sapping individual initiative. Living off of other people's earnings, like leeches. Deadbeats. Layabouts...
Yes, it is the individual's fault, ultimately, as to a sense of responsibility. But it is also - and I would say equally if not more so - the fault of the leaders of the society, and the structure itself; making it too easy for the citizenry to rest on their oars, and expect others to do the heavy lifting, as it were. And then everybody turns to pointing their fingers at each other; or blaming the system, for their not getting their 'fair share' out of the goody box...
So. I see red, figuratively and literally, in all this. (Or at the least - as to the latter 'take' on it - varying shades of pink.)
And yet. And yet...
And now for another side to this matter. Because I see the future, too, in it. Just with a couple of ingredients missing in the mix. The 'mix' between individualism and collectivism; 'capitalism' and 'communism'; self and society.
In the current campaigns going on in the streets of the U.S. and the UK in particular, I see signs that read 'Education is a right', and 'Health care is a right'. And you know what? They are. In a proper context. And it is the hem of that garment that these people are touching. The point being obscured by the trees of the moment. ('They're a privilege, not a right!' 'Nonsense! They are a fundamental right!' 'Nonsense! That's slavery!' 'Nonsense! That's just good common sense!' 'You're a commie!' 'And you're a fascist - and so's your old man!' 'And your mother is'...)
Consider a society where everything is provided by the society - that is, by the people in their grand 'collective'. There is enough food and housing for all; there is free-to-cheap energy (we're just about there, on that front, anyway); there are cars and bicycles and such, held in common, with individuals capable of 'purchasing' specific such items, beyond those held in common, from the credits they have received - 'earned' for various services to the collective. But the motivating power of the system is just that: service to the 'collective'. Not out of a desire for personal aggrandizement. (Although individuality will still be expressed, because there will inevitably not be enough of everything for everybody, and so they will make choices.) And the motivating power, more precisely - behind this concept of service to the Whole - will be very clear.
It will be, not 'money'. (And particularly not 'profit', since the key to the whole shift in civilizational level is to do away with interest-bearing money, and one of its major outcome structures, fractional-reserve banking; by then having been superseded.) Rather, it will be - and the system will have come about - out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Out of the recognition that life has Purpose, and that Purpose is Good. That life has meaning, beyond just in and for itself only. And once humanity really gets that - that life is not just about 'creature comforts', and bound by the space between the cradle and the grave - we will move out of the troubled waters of the present, and into the smooth sailing of the future; beginning to appear on our horizon, now.
Also because of the recognition, by then - as part of the recognized (re-cognized) Plan in and Purpose to the life experience- that We Are One Another. That through the process that we recognize at one of its stages as reincarnation (with its attendant law of karma), we are but playing parts while in incarnation. Now a prince, now a pauper; now male, now female; now one race or nationality or creed or religion, now another. For learning lessons, in the school that is life. And so, as we do unto others, so do we do unto ourselves.
Literally.
Because We Are All One.
Needing now to release our sense of individuality - of individuation - and return to our Source; as part of One Holy Being.
Join the move into the New.
It's going to happen anyway. With you, consciously, or without you. Because
the play is over.
It's time now for the real thing.
And the way to get there - the only way it will come about - is for each of us to give it our best shot; as it were.
The new paradigm can't work - will not work - if people individually take advantage of it.
And so we really need to release these thoughtforms of 'freebies'.
There really is, then, no such thing as a free lunch.
But if we all 'give it our best': the best will be manifested.
It's all a matter of attitude. To receive, you must first learn to give. And if we do - when we do - 'all else will be added unto us'. For life does not exist in a vacuum.
There's far, far more awaiting us.
But first things first:
cleaning up, and setting to rights, our home.
Our home, that is, away from Home.
Ah. The old Tinstaafl debate...
I have a very hard time with 'freebies', and that mentality. The mentality of 'entitlements'. If that mindset is all that I had known in life, I might understand better why people have so easily gotten brainwashed by it. It would - could easily - seem so 'natural' to them. But it's only natural in socialist-like settings.
I am an American. I came to the UK (Scotland) as an adult, so I didn't grow up in this sort of culture, of 'entitlements'. Perhaps that is why it rubs me so much 'the wrong way' - like, raw.
My position: No one is 'entitled' as a matter of 'right' to the earnings of any other person. That is theft. Not so pure, and not so simple - we do pay taxes to cover community-wide services like roads and public transport and police and fire services, and so forth. And yes - public education. And the latter is obviously where this business, of the attitude of social 'benefits', stemmed from. But it has become the proverbial foot in the door, for more, and more, and more 'entitlements' to muscle their way through to the public trough. And soon, it gets out of hand. As could have been seen, by anybody with eyes to see. It would have taken some very astute observers, and politicians, to keep a lid on the matter - a stopper on the door, to keep it from being widened more and more; as more and more people voted more and more money out of other people's pockets.
Oh yes, they were taxpayers, too, to start with. And it was the idea of a 'national insurance tax' to start with. But then the mentality of pure 'entitlement', and also of 'soak the rich', comes into play; and many people do get seduced by the idea of getting 'something for nothing'.
The welfare mentality...sapping individual initiative. Living off of other people's earnings, like leeches. Deadbeats. Layabouts...
Yes, it is the individual's fault, ultimately, as to a sense of responsibility. But it is also - and I would say equally if not more so - the fault of the leaders of the society, and the structure itself; making it too easy for the citizenry to rest on their oars, and expect others to do the heavy lifting, as it were. And then everybody turns to pointing their fingers at each other; or blaming the system, for their not getting their 'fair share' out of the goody box...
So. I see red, figuratively and literally, in all this. (Or at the least - as to the latter 'take' on it - varying shades of pink.)
And yet. And yet...
And now for another side to this matter. Because I see the future, too, in it. Just with a couple of ingredients missing in the mix. The 'mix' between individualism and collectivism; 'capitalism' and 'communism'; self and society.
In the current campaigns going on in the streets of the U.S. and the UK in particular, I see signs that read 'Education is a right', and 'Health care is a right'. And you know what? They are. In a proper context. And it is the hem of that garment that these people are touching. The point being obscured by the trees of the moment. ('They're a privilege, not a right!' 'Nonsense! They are a fundamental right!' 'Nonsense! That's slavery!' 'Nonsense! That's just good common sense!' 'You're a commie!' 'And you're a fascist - and so's your old man!' 'And your mother is'...)
Consider a society where everything is provided by the society - that is, by the people in their grand 'collective'. There is enough food and housing for all; there is free-to-cheap energy (we're just about there, on that front, anyway); there are cars and bicycles and such, held in common, with individuals capable of 'purchasing' specific such items, beyond those held in common, from the credits they have received - 'earned' for various services to the collective. But the motivating power of the system is just that: service to the 'collective'. Not out of a desire for personal aggrandizement. (Although individuality will still be expressed, because there will inevitably not be enough of everything for everybody, and so they will make choices.) And the motivating power, more precisely - behind this concept of service to the Whole - will be very clear.
It will be, not 'money'. (And particularly not 'profit', since the key to the whole shift in civilizational level is to do away with interest-bearing money, and one of its major outcome structures, fractional-reserve banking; by then having been superseded.) Rather, it will be - and the system will have come about - out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Out of the recognition that life has Purpose, and that Purpose is Good. That life has meaning, beyond just in and for itself only. And once humanity really gets that - that life is not just about 'creature comforts', and bound by the space between the cradle and the grave - we will move out of the troubled waters of the present, and into the smooth sailing of the future; beginning to appear on our horizon, now.
Also because of the recognition, by then - as part of the recognized (re-cognized) Plan in and Purpose to the life experience- that We Are One Another. That through the process that we recognize at one of its stages as reincarnation (with its attendant law of karma), we are but playing parts while in incarnation. Now a prince, now a pauper; now male, now female; now one race or nationality or creed or religion, now another. For learning lessons, in the school that is life. And so, as we do unto others, so do we do unto ourselves.
Literally.
Because We Are All One.
Needing now to release our sense of individuality - of individuation - and return to our Source; as part of One Holy Being.
Join the move into the New.
It's going to happen anyway. With you, consciously, or without you. Because
the play is over.
It's time now for the real thing.
And the way to get there - the only way it will come about - is for each of us to give it our best shot; as it were.
The new paradigm can't work - will not work - if people individually take advantage of it.
And so we really need to release these thoughtforms of 'freebies'.
There really is, then, no such thing as a free lunch.
But if we all 'give it our best': the best will be manifested.
It's all a matter of attitude. To receive, you must first learn to give. And if we do - when we do - 'all else will be added unto us'. For life does not exist in a vacuum.
There's far, far more awaiting us.
But first things first:
cleaning up, and setting to rights, our home.
Our home, that is, away from Home.
Friday, 7 October 2011
Free Speech - Or Not
[another hobby horse of mine]
"7 October 2011
Dear Adam et al at FIRE [Kissell; Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]
I appreciate the work that you folks are doing, because your hearts are in the right place; but I have a fundamental constitutional question about this 'free speech' matter. I'm wondering if you can help me (as obviously, you folks have researched this matter, and its 'paper trail', a lot).
(1) The federal government does not guarantee the citizens in any state anything except (1) a republican form of state government, and (2) via the 14th Amendment, "equal protection of the laws" - ie, in terms of the original intent, as I understand it, that state laws must in effect be color blind; no respecter of persons; all are equal before the law; and cannot be deprived of "life, liberty or property, without due process OF law" (my emphasis) - ie, there cannot be arbitrary government, acting outwith the law.
(2) The Constitution is a contract, stating what the federal government can and cannot do. The Bill of Rights is an example of what rights and powers the federal government does and does not have - and any others not specifically delegated to it are retained "by the people" (with respect to rights: the 9th Amendment), or "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (with respect to powers: the 10th Amendment). The point is that the several States were not surrendering up much power to the federal government; just in matters dealing with other countries, etc etc. All else not limited and delegated (in the words of Madison: "few and defined") remained in the purview of the several States, as secured for their citizens in law in their state constitutions.
(3) Somewhere along the line, the Bill of Rights - ie, an example of rights not allowed to be trampled on, or adjudicated upon, by the federal government, since it was not ceded the power to do so by the Constitution - has been turned on its head, and made to apply FROM the federal government (& its judiciary) TO the states. Without an amendment to this effect, this would appear to have been a bit of legalistic legerdemain; accomplished apparently by a VERY liberal reading of the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause.
Instead of just taking this clause as a statement outlawing arbitrary law, liberal law school professors (presumably seeing their chance to establish a unitary form of government in the country, whereby they could control the whole from the top; easier to take over that way, bend to your interests), interpreted this clause as 'incorporating' the Bill of Rights (and by inevitable extension, all those rights and powers previously retained by the people and the States, and held in check by their state constitutions) into being now residing in the purview of and control of the federal government, and its Supreme Court's interpretation thereof. Before this 'principle' of 'incorporation' (nothing black-letter legal about it; it's simply an opinion, that the Supreme Court has ended up agreeing with), all these rights - freedom of speech and press, etc etc - were held within the purview of the several States And it is that turning of the Constitution on its head that I object to.*
I agree that our rights preceded the Constitution, for that argument. I don't agree that the Constitution guarantees those rights - legally. Only by what has come to be custom. And I don't like the way that was brought about. It was brought about, as I indicate - and in my opinion - by sleight of hand.
(4) A thought here: the 14th Amendment made the citizens of every state also citizens of the United States; and the federal government could thenceforth theoretically override any state constitution's provision that doesn't give its citizens the rights and privileges of ALL the citizens of the United States - or that doesn't apply the laws applicable to the United States/federal government to their citizens. But that didn't happen at the time (and so it wasn't recognized as part of 'the deal' at the time; thus going to the legitimate legal principle of original intent). Nor for some time later. So one has a right to the assumption that that wasn't what was meant (intended).
In my research into this curious matter, some years ago - the Matter of The Pilfered Constitution - I had to trace the paper trail all the way down to around 1941, for the first time (at least as I could find) that the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment as applying from the federal government to the States. (It involved, as I recall, a person burning the American flag as a political protest, and getting censured for it by his state, under whatever state ordinance; with the Supreme Court citing the First Amendment to let him off.) And that seemed to open the door for more of the same; ie, in that vein, of court interpretation.
It seems rather strange that constitutionalists didn't kick up a major fuss over it at the time. Or maybe they did; and that was the beginning of control of the mainstream media in this regard. In any event: the cry, down to our day, of 'our constitutional rights', seems due to a misunderstanding of the Constitution as she is wrote, not as some would like it to be interpreted, or assume that it actually reads. They need to actually read it.
As to the 14th Amendment opening this door:
(5) The 'principle' of 'incorporation' found by some in the 14th Amendment - assumed to be there - is not the only affront to legitimacy occasioned by that amendment. It turns out that the 14th Amendment itself may not even have been ratified properly anyway. So maybe the answer to a number of judicial errors (the 'personhood' of corporations is involved in this matter as well) can be overturned in one fell swoop: by challenging stare decisis, in declaring the 14th illegally obtained, and reinstituting its best features - legally this time - without the toxic ones. And maybe then The People can have some faith and confidence in their constitutional law again, as writ. Not as proclaimed by devious players in the game of government.
In sum:
(6) The federal government was illegally made the guarantor of various domestic issues, like 'free speech'. There were debates on these matters between the Federalists and the Republicans in the 1790s and 1800s. But I still say that the Supreme Court has no legitimate business ruling on issues that are the rightful business of the people in their several states. The states, being states, and not just pretend entities, have the inherent power to regulate the 'rights' of their citizenry. From fornicating in the streets; asking for photo IDs in order to vote; permitting, or not, abortion - etc etc. There is a legitimate legal concept called 'contemporary community standards', which means, in effect, government by the consent of the governed - and that consent may vary from state to state. One size does NOT fit all, in a federal form of government. A majoritarian attitude towards art in the public museums and galleries of the state of New York may well differ from the majoritarian attitude towards the same in the state of Indiana, say; etc.
I'm saying that 'rights' can be legitimately regulated, as the price of living in a social construct we call a 'community'; and absent a clear and specific delegation of power to the federal government via the Constitution to regulate on such matters, that regulation legitimately takes place within the several States. As the 'laboratories' that they are, for such things. Places to try out various approaches to societal matters. Welfare issues; and so forth and so on. The federal government and its Supreme Court have no rightful business forcing all the states to fit their procrustean bed, of 'interpretation'. It was the same with the Roe v Wade decision. And it is the same with 'free speech' issues.
We give the federal government total, unitary control over us to our peril. You folks at FIRE may not like that take on the Constitution. But you'll have to convince me that the truth of the matter is otherwise.
And not to say that the principle of 'free speech' is not a good thing. Indeed, it is. Letting the federal government, and its Supreme Court, sit in ultimate judgment on what constitutes free speech is another matter entirely. And one that I don't support.
Let me know where I'm wrong in my take on this matter. I will be very happy to hear about it. Because I care about such matters, deeply. The matter, in its essence, of the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men, with agendas.
Best regards,
'Stan' Stanfield
* And which is behind Roe v Wade, eg. That sort of thing is rightfully - ie, constitutionally - a matter for the several States to decide for themselves.
By rights, those who want the federal government to run the whole show should propose an amendment to the Constitution saying something like: 'All those powers previously reserved to the States or to the people shall now reside in the federal government." And let's see how they go with the debate - fair and square."
"7 October 2011
Dear Adam et al at FIRE [Kissell; Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]
I appreciate the work that you folks are doing, because your hearts are in the right place; but I have a fundamental constitutional question about this 'free speech' matter. I'm wondering if you can help me (as obviously, you folks have researched this matter, and its 'paper trail', a lot).
(1) The federal government does not guarantee the citizens in any state anything except (1) a republican form of state government, and (2) via the 14th Amendment, "equal protection of the laws" - ie, in terms of the original intent, as I understand it, that state laws must in effect be color blind; no respecter of persons; all are equal before the law; and cannot be deprived of "life, liberty or property, without due process OF law" (my emphasis) - ie, there cannot be arbitrary government, acting outwith the law.
(2) The Constitution is a contract, stating what the federal government can and cannot do. The Bill of Rights is an example of what rights and powers the federal government does and does not have - and any others not specifically delegated to it are retained "by the people" (with respect to rights: the 9th Amendment), or "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (with respect to powers: the 10th Amendment). The point is that the several States were not surrendering up much power to the federal government; just in matters dealing with other countries, etc etc. All else not limited and delegated (in the words of Madison: "few and defined") remained in the purview of the several States, as secured for their citizens in law in their state constitutions.
(3) Somewhere along the line, the Bill of Rights - ie, an example of rights not allowed to be trampled on, or adjudicated upon, by the federal government, since it was not ceded the power to do so by the Constitution - has been turned on its head, and made to apply FROM the federal government (& its judiciary) TO the states. Without an amendment to this effect, this would appear to have been a bit of legalistic legerdemain; accomplished apparently by a VERY liberal reading of the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause.
Instead of just taking this clause as a statement outlawing arbitrary law, liberal law school professors (presumably seeing their chance to establish a unitary form of government in the country, whereby they could control the whole from the top; easier to take over that way, bend to your interests), interpreted this clause as 'incorporating' the Bill of Rights (and by inevitable extension, all those rights and powers previously retained by the people and the States, and held in check by their state constitutions) into being now residing in the purview of and control of the federal government, and its Supreme Court's interpretation thereof. Before this 'principle' of 'incorporation' (nothing black-letter legal about it; it's simply an opinion, that the Supreme Court has ended up agreeing with), all these rights - freedom of speech and press, etc etc - were held within the purview of the several States And it is that turning of the Constitution on its head that I object to.*
I agree that our rights preceded the Constitution, for that argument. I don't agree that the Constitution guarantees those rights - legally. Only by what has come to be custom. And I don't like the way that was brought about. It was brought about, as I indicate - and in my opinion - by sleight of hand.
(4) A thought here: the 14th Amendment made the citizens of every state also citizens of the United States; and the federal government could thenceforth theoretically override any state constitution's provision that doesn't give its citizens the rights and privileges of ALL the citizens of the United States - or that doesn't apply the laws applicable to the United States/federal government to their citizens. But that didn't happen at the time (and so it wasn't recognized as part of 'the deal' at the time; thus going to the legitimate legal principle of original intent). Nor for some time later. So one has a right to the assumption that that wasn't what was meant (intended).
In my research into this curious matter, some years ago - the Matter of The Pilfered Constitution - I had to trace the paper trail all the way down to around 1941, for the first time (at least as I could find) that the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment as applying from the federal government to the States. (It involved, as I recall, a person burning the American flag as a political protest, and getting censured for it by his state, under whatever state ordinance; with the Supreme Court citing the First Amendment to let him off.) And that seemed to open the door for more of the same; ie, in that vein, of court interpretation.
It seems rather strange that constitutionalists didn't kick up a major fuss over it at the time. Or maybe they did; and that was the beginning of control of the mainstream media in this regard. In any event: the cry, down to our day, of 'our constitutional rights', seems due to a misunderstanding of the Constitution as she is wrote, not as some would like it to be interpreted, or assume that it actually reads. They need to actually read it.
As to the 14th Amendment opening this door:
(5) The 'principle' of 'incorporation' found by some in the 14th Amendment - assumed to be there - is not the only affront to legitimacy occasioned by that amendment. It turns out that the 14th Amendment itself may not even have been ratified properly anyway. So maybe the answer to a number of judicial errors (the 'personhood' of corporations is involved in this matter as well) can be overturned in one fell swoop: by challenging stare decisis, in declaring the 14th illegally obtained, and reinstituting its best features - legally this time - without the toxic ones. And maybe then The People can have some faith and confidence in their constitutional law again, as writ. Not as proclaimed by devious players in the game of government.
In sum:
(6) The federal government was illegally made the guarantor of various domestic issues, like 'free speech'. There were debates on these matters between the Federalists and the Republicans in the 1790s and 1800s. But I still say that the Supreme Court has no legitimate business ruling on issues that are the rightful business of the people in their several states. The states, being states, and not just pretend entities, have the inherent power to regulate the 'rights' of their citizenry. From fornicating in the streets; asking for photo IDs in order to vote; permitting, or not, abortion - etc etc. There is a legitimate legal concept called 'contemporary community standards', which means, in effect, government by the consent of the governed - and that consent may vary from state to state. One size does NOT fit all, in a federal form of government. A majoritarian attitude towards art in the public museums and galleries of the state of New York may well differ from the majoritarian attitude towards the same in the state of Indiana, say; etc.
I'm saying that 'rights' can be legitimately regulated, as the price of living in a social construct we call a 'community'; and absent a clear and specific delegation of power to the federal government via the Constitution to regulate on such matters, that regulation legitimately takes place within the several States. As the 'laboratories' that they are, for such things. Places to try out various approaches to societal matters. Welfare issues; and so forth and so on. The federal government and its Supreme Court have no rightful business forcing all the states to fit their procrustean bed, of 'interpretation'. It was the same with the Roe v Wade decision. And it is the same with 'free speech' issues.
We give the federal government total, unitary control over us to our peril. You folks at FIRE may not like that take on the Constitution. But you'll have to convince me that the truth of the matter is otherwise.
And not to say that the principle of 'free speech' is not a good thing. Indeed, it is. Letting the federal government, and its Supreme Court, sit in ultimate judgment on what constitutes free speech is another matter entirely. And one that I don't support.
Let me know where I'm wrong in my take on this matter. I will be very happy to hear about it. Because I care about such matters, deeply. The matter, in its essence, of the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men, with agendas.
Best regards,
'Stan' Stanfield
* And which is behind Roe v Wade, eg. That sort of thing is rightfully - ie, constitutionally - a matter for the several States to decide for themselves.
By rights, those who want the federal government to run the whole show should propose an amendment to the Constitution saying something like: 'All those powers previously reserved to the States or to the people shall now reside in the federal government." And let's see how they go with the debate - fair and square."
Thursday, 6 October 2011
So things are heating up...
As the Occupy Wall Street event continues, and morphs into something of a movement, some observations.
First of all, to clarify my basic perspective; and that is, that there is some truth on both sides of this confrontation - which is part of an unfolding process, to a new, higher level of consciousness, for humanity to inhabit, in order to get to 'the Promised Land' - a Golden Age, just a bit out of our reach just yet, as the process of unfoldment plays its way out into the light of that new day.
Some salient points of the process. On the one hand:
* It is immoral to seduce people into a dependency/'entitlement' mentality. Whatever justification there has been - has been employed - it has been outrageous and immoral to allow a dependency culture to be created, wherein people feel that the state owes them something, that they are 'entitled' to - owes them a living, or a home; an education; healthcare, childcare, and so forth. That just by virtue of being a member of the society, they are owed various 'entitlements'. Like communist/socialist states declared, in order to buy the fealty and loyalty of their citizens. A better word for which is serfs - property of the state. To do, in return, what the state wants them to do; since it owns them, lock, stock, and barrel. In a nutshell: the generation of a 'something for nothing' mentality; going on for generations.
Having said that:
* There are intimations of the future 'state' in all of this. Because where humanity is headed is a stateless society - much, indeed, like Marx envisioned; sensed; where 'private property' was a thing of the past. Where everything would be held in common. Just not the way that Marx, and other materialists -'secular humanists' - assumed, just looking at life in a linear fashion, not grasping the full dimensionality of it, and of 'human nature'. And thus they saw the need for the equivalent of a police state, until the serfs could be educated to a higher state of consciousness - the New Man, aka Soviet Man.
And against which, citizens in their capitalist, private-property societies - and from painful experience in the socialist and communist models that were tried out in the 20th century - rebelled. And rightfully so. But in that reaction, a warning: Don't be content to let the current outcome of this left-vs-right confrontation be 'business as usual'. For - as indicated above - there are seeds of truth on both sides of this historical equation; or rather, process, as I posited.
As to this process: let me quote from a comment I made to an article on the e-letter site World New Daily, referring to the subject of 'Obama Administration Filled with Activists for Globalism' (by Aaron Klein, posted on 1 October this year). The article referenced the backgrounds of various players in the Obama administration, and - interestingly, and honestly enough - noted that there were some very 'rightwing', capitalist names among the 'usual suspects' on the left of the political scene in the U.S. The article prompted this response from me:
"1) I trust that the people on this thread will at some point realize that there is an element of truth on both sides of the debate, and that the answer is to take it up a notch from its current level of stand-off - and that in point of fact, that process and needed movement is precisely where we are at in our historical time and place globally. As for this sense of a 'dialectical process':*
"2) I hope that everybody is noticing, in the article itself, the illuminative crossover that is taking place, evidencing that what is going on politically is, in greater truth,not a matter of 'left' vs 'right',but is a matter of the PTB playing them both off against each other, in order to bring abut the desired synthesis stage of a secular New World Over, commanded by a powerful elite; which would, indeed, be odious, for being under the control of power-hungry men, who would be proving the axiom, Without a vision, the people perish.
"But then they are, after all, serving a higher purpose. And out of all of this - all of this sturm und drang that Man has been engaged in long enough - will come a Golden Age. An age of celebration, with the Prodigal Son having returned to the house of his Father - by choice. And the wiser for the experience; of having wandered in the wilderness of life, cut off from his roots. To mix a few metaphors; but hopefully drawing a coherent picture, of where we're at, and what we need now to do."
A couple of points. Clearly, the PTB of this level of reality, on this planet, have 'a vision'. I simply meant that, in the absence of an overriding vision, of the Plan and Purpose of life, men are led astray, by their lesser impulses: impulses to power, and so forth. And secondly, I am saying that, with the help of such discerning articles as this one, we - humanity - have the ability to see what, precisely, is going on, and how the PTB are working 'both sides of the aisle' in order to unfold circumstances to their liking.
'Their': the so-called 'globalists'. The magalomaniacs, who would sacrifice anybody, and in any numbers, to further their cause. Believing, as they demonstrably do, that the end justifies the means.
The philosophy of tyrants down through history.
And so what is going on, for them to further their end.
Item. The Obama administration - and like the Bush administration before it - is quietly trashing the constitutional safeguards against tyrannical takeover of the American state. One example: a secret Justice Department memo authorizing (justifying) the federal executive to engage in lethal targeting of anybody whom the executive branch/administration determines is an enemy of the state - ie, justifying sate-sanctioned assassination. Purely on the say-so, ultimately, of the Commander in Chief. Who is being given such powers under the state of war that the PTB have declared, in their War on Terror - the excuse they needed to trash the Constitution, and its safeguards against such highhanded measures by the Executive. Item. Building on powers put in place under the preceding Bush administration, the Obama administration has created a Council of Governors, to advise him on such matters as a 'state of national emergency' - giving him cover to declare such a state, and therefore impose Martial Law on the country. All its taking to do so being something like (orchestrated) battles between forces of the 'left' and the 'right' - or 'a new Pearl Harbor'. As 9/11 was, to further the 'vision' of the Neocons, who wanted American hegemony - an imperial presence - in the Middle East.** Item. Executive branch rules and regulations depriving the public of the right to be able to grow their own food, because the PTB have plans for the culling of the populace, down to 'manageable' proportions (including with vaccine ingredients; another subject in itself), and they can't have individuals being 'off the grid' - independently able to take care of themselves. Item. 'Smart meters' in homes, so that if the residents (or other inhabitants, unknown to the state) exceed their quotas, of energy usage (or CO2 levels, for the number of people officially staying there), their energy sources can be cut off, and/or other foul deeds done to them, as unilaterally declared 'enemies of the state' (see, eg, Agenda 21).
And thus the reason for the great 'climate change' scare: as an excuse to control the populace.
In a police state.
That The People should not allow to be fastened onto them. Regardless of its ostensible purpose - 'for the betterment of living on the planet'. It is still police state stuff. A control mentality, that does not allow humans to exercise their free will.
And therefore should be resisted. By people on both the 'left' and the 'right' of the current political scene.
People, coming together, in common cause, to create a better world - from this major Crisis state, allowing such a major Opportunity - based on Truth.
The Truth of our being. Being, in a well-put expression: 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.
Having the experience of life, on this level of existence, in order to grow from the experience. Knowing, finally, beyond any doubt, that
there is Plan in and Purpose to life, beyond just in and for itself only.
And that we can create that Golden Age by being motivated by just one factor. The highest factor of all such factors. Far beyond the lower classroom factors of the likes of 'profit'. The crowning one of all: to provide goods and services to one another, and to give of our best in doing so -
out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Join me in that cause.
You'll be glad that you did.
Even if, momentarily, you think that life was sweeter before the revolution.
Taste the nectar of life everlasting. And you will never want to go back to its pale imitations.
In sum.
We are - humanity is - at a Turning Point (The Great Turning, in the words of such thoughtful observers of the socio-econo-political scene as David C. Korten and Joanna Macy). Once the 'stakes' were raised to the global level, by the 'right' side of the dialectical process of historical unfoldment - the side emphasizing the individual over the collective; and doing so in a merely materialistic way - a new, higher stage of the process can kick in, in reaction. And now, a culminating stage, because the stakes are the planet as a whole being subject to control by mere materialists, on the one hand, or under the guiding sway of 'spiritualists', ie, those who understand their real roots being in the 'higher realms', dimensions; 'densities' as they have been called. Not in the lower base level.
Yes, part of our natures is mammalian, with mammalian instincts. And, we have a higher nature; that 'tells' us, in many ways, that we are part of a larger Whole than the merely material; a Whole in which we move and live and have our being, to a Plan and Purpose. The Plan worked out through a process we call reincarnation, and the Purpose of which is to grow, in awareness and 'consciousness'; the better for the experience.
Let's be abut that better business, than the interim-stage stuff we are engaged in at the moment; and running the risk of getting stuck in, for the lack of a more wholistic vision. Of ourselves as sparks of our divine Source. On a journey to return Home; and know the place as if for the first time.
---
* This is in reference to the 'Marxist' theory of history unfolding in a process he/they called 'dialectical materialism', based on the German philosopher Friedrich Hegel's 'take' on how societies unfold. The process is characterized by a position, called a 'thesis', which triggers a reaction, called an 'antithesis', out of which process comes a 'synthesis'; but because it is not a complete process, ie, that synthesis still containing incomplete seeds, it becomes the 'thesis' of another stage of unfoldment. I happen to feel that Hegel had a good handle on how the historical process has developed and unfolded, and subscribe to it. In its way, it is the equivalent of the natural evolutionary process. (Which answers some of the questions regarding the development of Homo sapiens; but not all.)
** And I'm not saying here that the Bush administration - and its Neocons - were totally responsible for 9/11. But they were involved. As were elements of the nominal 'left'. But 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they - and other PTB behind the scenes - wanted, to create a War on Terror, thus generating both great financial gains for themselves, and the circumstances to activate takeover measures, which would ultimately demolish the Constitution; get it out of the way of their juggernaught, their putsch for uncontrolled power. So it was more LIHOP - Let It Happen On Purpose - than MIHOP - Make It Happen On Purpose. As near as I can tell, at this point, from the available evidence.
All of this will come out, when the country starts engaging in truth-telling. About all manner of historical events. As part of what is needed for humanity to be able to move forward, into its new era - to learn its lessons fully. So as not to have to repeat them.
First of all, to clarify my basic perspective; and that is, that there is some truth on both sides of this confrontation - which is part of an unfolding process, to a new, higher level of consciousness, for humanity to inhabit, in order to get to 'the Promised Land' - a Golden Age, just a bit out of our reach just yet, as the process of unfoldment plays its way out into the light of that new day.
Some salient points of the process. On the one hand:
* It is immoral to seduce people into a dependency/'entitlement' mentality. Whatever justification there has been - has been employed - it has been outrageous and immoral to allow a dependency culture to be created, wherein people feel that the state owes them something, that they are 'entitled' to - owes them a living, or a home; an education; healthcare, childcare, and so forth. That just by virtue of being a member of the society, they are owed various 'entitlements'. Like communist/socialist states declared, in order to buy the fealty and loyalty of their citizens. A better word for which is serfs - property of the state. To do, in return, what the state wants them to do; since it owns them, lock, stock, and barrel. In a nutshell: the generation of a 'something for nothing' mentality; going on for generations.
Having said that:
* There are intimations of the future 'state' in all of this. Because where humanity is headed is a stateless society - much, indeed, like Marx envisioned; sensed; where 'private property' was a thing of the past. Where everything would be held in common. Just not the way that Marx, and other materialists -'secular humanists' - assumed, just looking at life in a linear fashion, not grasping the full dimensionality of it, and of 'human nature'. And thus they saw the need for the equivalent of a police state, until the serfs could be educated to a higher state of consciousness - the New Man, aka Soviet Man.
And against which, citizens in their capitalist, private-property societies - and from painful experience in the socialist and communist models that were tried out in the 20th century - rebelled. And rightfully so. But in that reaction, a warning: Don't be content to let the current outcome of this left-vs-right confrontation be 'business as usual'. For - as indicated above - there are seeds of truth on both sides of this historical equation; or rather, process, as I posited.
As to this process: let me quote from a comment I made to an article on the e-letter site World New Daily, referring to the subject of 'Obama Administration Filled with Activists for Globalism' (by Aaron Klein, posted on 1 October this year). The article referenced the backgrounds of various players in the Obama administration, and - interestingly, and honestly enough - noted that there were some very 'rightwing', capitalist names among the 'usual suspects' on the left of the political scene in the U.S. The article prompted this response from me:
"1) I trust that the people on this thread will at some point realize that there is an element of truth on both sides of the debate, and that the answer is to take it up a notch from its current level of stand-off - and that in point of fact, that process and needed movement is precisely where we are at in our historical time and place globally. As for this sense of a 'dialectical process':*
"2) I hope that everybody is noticing, in the article itself, the illuminative crossover that is taking place, evidencing that what is going on politically is, in greater truth,not a matter of 'left' vs 'right',but is a matter of the PTB playing them both off against each other, in order to bring abut the desired synthesis stage of a secular New World Over, commanded by a powerful elite; which would, indeed, be odious, for being under the control of power-hungry men, who would be proving the axiom, Without a vision, the people perish.
"But then they are, after all, serving a higher purpose. And out of all of this - all of this sturm und drang that Man has been engaged in long enough - will come a Golden Age. An age of celebration, with the Prodigal Son having returned to the house of his Father - by choice. And the wiser for the experience; of having wandered in the wilderness of life, cut off from his roots. To mix a few metaphors; but hopefully drawing a coherent picture, of where we're at, and what we need now to do."
A couple of points. Clearly, the PTB of this level of reality, on this planet, have 'a vision'. I simply meant that, in the absence of an overriding vision, of the Plan and Purpose of life, men are led astray, by their lesser impulses: impulses to power, and so forth. And secondly, I am saying that, with the help of such discerning articles as this one, we - humanity - have the ability to see what, precisely, is going on, and how the PTB are working 'both sides of the aisle' in order to unfold circumstances to their liking.
'Their': the so-called 'globalists'. The magalomaniacs, who would sacrifice anybody, and in any numbers, to further their cause. Believing, as they demonstrably do, that the end justifies the means.
The philosophy of tyrants down through history.
And so what is going on, for them to further their end.
Item. The Obama administration - and like the Bush administration before it - is quietly trashing the constitutional safeguards against tyrannical takeover of the American state. One example: a secret Justice Department memo authorizing (justifying) the federal executive to engage in lethal targeting of anybody whom the executive branch/administration determines is an enemy of the state - ie, justifying sate-sanctioned assassination. Purely on the say-so, ultimately, of the Commander in Chief. Who is being given such powers under the state of war that the PTB have declared, in their War on Terror - the excuse they needed to trash the Constitution, and its safeguards against such highhanded measures by the Executive. Item. Building on powers put in place under the preceding Bush administration, the Obama administration has created a Council of Governors, to advise him on such matters as a 'state of national emergency' - giving him cover to declare such a state, and therefore impose Martial Law on the country. All its taking to do so being something like (orchestrated) battles between forces of the 'left' and the 'right' - or 'a new Pearl Harbor'. As 9/11 was, to further the 'vision' of the Neocons, who wanted American hegemony - an imperial presence - in the Middle East.** Item. Executive branch rules and regulations depriving the public of the right to be able to grow their own food, because the PTB have plans for the culling of the populace, down to 'manageable' proportions (including with vaccine ingredients; another subject in itself), and they can't have individuals being 'off the grid' - independently able to take care of themselves. Item. 'Smart meters' in homes, so that if the residents (or other inhabitants, unknown to the state) exceed their quotas, of energy usage (or CO2 levels, for the number of people officially staying there), their energy sources can be cut off, and/or other foul deeds done to them, as unilaterally declared 'enemies of the state' (see, eg, Agenda 21).
And thus the reason for the great 'climate change' scare: as an excuse to control the populace.
In a police state.
That The People should not allow to be fastened onto them. Regardless of its ostensible purpose - 'for the betterment of living on the planet'. It is still police state stuff. A control mentality, that does not allow humans to exercise their free will.
And therefore should be resisted. By people on both the 'left' and the 'right' of the current political scene.
People, coming together, in common cause, to create a better world - from this major Crisis state, allowing such a major Opportunity - based on Truth.
The Truth of our being. Being, in a well-put expression: 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.
Having the experience of life, on this level of existence, in order to grow from the experience. Knowing, finally, beyond any doubt, that
there is Plan in and Purpose to life, beyond just in and for itself only.
And that we can create that Golden Age by being motivated by just one factor. The highest factor of all such factors. Far beyond the lower classroom factors of the likes of 'profit'. The crowning one of all: to provide goods and services to one another, and to give of our best in doing so -
out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning.
Join me in that cause.
You'll be glad that you did.
Even if, momentarily, you think that life was sweeter before the revolution.
Taste the nectar of life everlasting. And you will never want to go back to its pale imitations.
In sum.
We are - humanity is - at a Turning Point (The Great Turning, in the words of such thoughtful observers of the socio-econo-political scene as David C. Korten and Joanna Macy). Once the 'stakes' were raised to the global level, by the 'right' side of the dialectical process of historical unfoldment - the side emphasizing the individual over the collective; and doing so in a merely materialistic way - a new, higher stage of the process can kick in, in reaction. And now, a culminating stage, because the stakes are the planet as a whole being subject to control by mere materialists, on the one hand, or under the guiding sway of 'spiritualists', ie, those who understand their real roots being in the 'higher realms', dimensions; 'densities' as they have been called. Not in the lower base level.
Yes, part of our natures is mammalian, with mammalian instincts. And, we have a higher nature; that 'tells' us, in many ways, that we are part of a larger Whole than the merely material; a Whole in which we move and live and have our being, to a Plan and Purpose. The Plan worked out through a process we call reincarnation, and the Purpose of which is to grow, in awareness and 'consciousness'; the better for the experience.
Let's be abut that better business, than the interim-stage stuff we are engaged in at the moment; and running the risk of getting stuck in, for the lack of a more wholistic vision. Of ourselves as sparks of our divine Source. On a journey to return Home; and know the place as if for the first time.
---
* This is in reference to the 'Marxist' theory of history unfolding in a process he/they called 'dialectical materialism', based on the German philosopher Friedrich Hegel's 'take' on how societies unfold. The process is characterized by a position, called a 'thesis', which triggers a reaction, called an 'antithesis', out of which process comes a 'synthesis'; but because it is not a complete process, ie, that synthesis still containing incomplete seeds, it becomes the 'thesis' of another stage of unfoldment. I happen to feel that Hegel had a good handle on how the historical process has developed and unfolded, and subscribe to it. In its way, it is the equivalent of the natural evolutionary process. (Which answers some of the questions regarding the development of Homo sapiens; but not all.)
** And I'm not saying here that the Bush administration - and its Neocons - were totally responsible for 9/11. But they were involved. As were elements of the nominal 'left'. But 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they - and other PTB behind the scenes - wanted, to create a War on Terror, thus generating both great financial gains for themselves, and the circumstances to activate takeover measures, which would ultimately demolish the Constitution; get it out of the way of their juggernaught, their putsch for uncontrolled power. So it was more LIHOP - Let It Happen On Purpose - than MIHOP - Make It Happen On Purpose. As near as I can tell, at this point, from the available evidence.
All of this will come out, when the country starts engaging in truth-telling. About all manner of historical events. As part of what is needed for humanity to be able to move forward, into its new era - to learn its lessons fully. So as not to have to repeat them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)