News Briefs 06-07-2006

My Maroon cup runneth over

Thanks Kat!

Quote of the Day:

The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.

Mohandes Gandhi

  1. The spirit of democracy
    The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.

    Mohandes Gandhi

    Of course that means no country or people deserve freedom or democracy unless the whole population are willing to rise up alone and sacrifice many of themselves on the gamble they might be succesful in overthrowing their current regime. Right?

    1. Imposing democracy…
      …is an oxymoron to start with.

      Furthermore the ‘imposition of democracy’ has already cost the lives of many, who had not necessarily chosen to die for the projection of a foreign ideology.

      There is one value that is common to the population of most countries and that is peace.

      What democracy is there when those who would impose it impose a code of laws and regulations aimed at economically enslaving the future of the population and claim control over their resources?

      And what would be the meaning of the word democracy if those you could vote for first had to be approved by the ‘benevolent’ occupying force?

      The Middle-East has already, and for a long time now, been victim of convenient arbitrary redefinition of borders based on resource locations and colonial ambitions, regardless of the actual ethnic and cultural realities present.

      When we peddle democracy today, we are simply peddling the interests of the West disguised in candy-coated words such as democracy and freedom.

      Had we really wanted the people of those nations to own their destiny, we would not have supported convenient dictators to start with or fomented the overthrow of governments that, in some cases, had been duly elected by their population.

      I can obviously not disagree that ultimately; the freedom to choose of those populations is highly desirable. Where I have a problem is when we would impose a condition that hides behind its pretensions an agenda of self-service that always benefit a certain elite that craves to bring the world under its ‘one rule’ but never really for the benefit of those under that rule.

      We are not clean enough ourselves to impose anything and we are not intelligent enough to work with or even better: to work for.

      We always have something to gain. After all, the imposition of democracy may simply be ‘good business’.

      1. Amen, Richard
        I’ll be right behind you as you nail that to the door of the ‘church’. Well said.

        Peace and Respect
        You monkeys only think you’re running things

      2. Even though most of what you
        Even though most of what you said is relatively true, I kind of have to take a stance of “So?”

        That is the way world powers always have and always will work. It doesn’t make it right. But it is reality. Everyone knows it. The middle eastern countries that Ghandi quote was obviously put here to defend are not any more innocent of the crimes you list as America is.

        Nobody really believes in the altruistic reasons sold for any activity by any government. If they do, they are idiots. But that doesn’t discount the possible good things that can and do happen as a result of all you’re bitching about, which you, Greg, and Ghandi ommit from your statements. I know many people would love nothing more than to believe every single Middle Easterner despises America and hates western involvement there, but it’s simply not true, that is leftist propaganda just as poisonous as the excuses used to be there in the first place.

        Well said though. An extreme far left slant in your writing that ommits other important factors, but still well said.

        1. Thanks for the compliments
          Thanks for the compliments on my writings thrustbucket. English not being my mother tongue; it is always nice to see that I am making some progress.

          Of course I omitted factors and admittedly, it would have been difficult to not omit any, short of writing a series of books, historical and contemporary. I do trust that you did see what I meant though.

          Good things do happen? That would be a question of perception but I would agree in the sense that what must happen will happen and that there is no way around it. This is what can actually lead us to say or believe that things are the way they are and always will be, even if they obviously won’t. I will also agree that the left/right polarization is a double-faced poison and that both are the two hands of a same conflictual consciousness. And, I also agree that historically, those nations and those individuals that had the means, used it. Those that did not, we did not hear about.

          On a side bar, a lot of people believed that the Eastern block would survive much longer, some thought forever, and all civilizations past all believed that what was, was permanent. I disagree to this view and say that all that only consciousness has permanence.

          Mind you I am not referring to what we believe consciousness to be as that, to me, rather is the sum of architectural unconscious.
          (Meaning: organized thought forms that suit the need of a civilization for its projection and development in time and that are used/channeled unconsciously by those who belong to that civilization. This only lasts for the time of that civilization and then another paradigm takes over to reorganize the mind.)

          Middle Easterner don’t all despise the US and western involvement of course, Bin-Laden is very happy things are going the way they are (I know, I know, some honest people do too, just kidding but…). The points I made did not only apply to the US but to all nations that still would bear some colonialist aspirations or be willing to whore along. Middle-Easterners can fall into the traps of which you are aware by your own sayings:
          Nobody really believes in the altruistic reasons sold for any activity by any government. If they do, they are idiots
          and hope that true democracy can germinate from the situation. Their hopes and beliefs do not alter in any way the agenda of those forces that feed them those hopes.

          The problems they already are facing, regardless of their hopes, is the underlying reality that what they thought was their freedom, based on their own cultural consensus. Here for example is something on Iraq’s new patent law also, the updated Iraq’s intellectual property law that is the original pdf if you are interested in the actual text of Bremer’s order 81.

          I was less bitching than simply stating my views on the concept of democracy imposition. Sorry if you took it as such.

          Now, about the ‘extreme far-left slant’, what is ‘leftist’ about me? Could you describe what a leftist is? I am a bit lost and perhaps worn with this constant left/right polarization that redirects the attention away from a topic. Still, I would be curious to know what makes you say I am a so called ‘extreme’ leftist sort of guy? Not a challenge, just a question.

          1. what to do?
            There is justified criticism of the “western” powers over the last few hundred years. With colonialism, imperialism, and commericalism and all that.

            Some of the conquests of the era of western dominance have been made under the (largely) false pretense of trying to better the lives of the poor schmucks being conquered. Some percentage of those poor schmucks were actually better off under colonialism, and still are today. But that is not my point.

            The era of western dominance is only the most recent example of this kind of thing. Before that, Rome and Persia dominated large populations that did not want this to happen. China did the same thing – the current expanse of China is due to military conquest and economic domination. Only due to that, nothing else.

            At other times, Spain was a colony of Arabia. The Incas and Aztecs and Maya dominated large parts of the Americas, again by military conquest and economic power. Not by gentle persuasion, or cultural harmony.

            The country that resulted from Ghandi’s non-violent revolution (India) dominates by military force and economic power as much as any other country.

            There have been attempts to change these patterns. Early Christian ideas, the peace movement, even some communist movements. And you can insert your favourite philosophy or religion here as well. All of these have not only failed, they have been turned into the same old patterns of force, money, and corruption.

            So, what new ideas are there? And why would they work?

          2. Ghandi and moral equivance
            I’ll stick my nose in here to make a brief comment: if Ghandi had been resisting the presence of Stalin instead of the Brits, there would have been a bloodbath as great as any in the 20th Century. Not all imperialist, war mongering empires are equal. Your mileage may vary. 😉

          3. Can it be ‘done’ or should it be ‘realized’?
            The new idea is pretty simple but is not likely to work for a time still.

            The idea that the individual reclaims his consciousness for himself rather than through association to an ideology in light of a total and absolute respect for peace. Not the peace of Christ but fuc’n peace period.

            When each individual cannot be lied to and manipulated, a civilization based on domination and lies cannot stand and then, only then, can we begin talking about what democracy is.

            Of course, that is not likely to occur until such time when the current civilization cannot offer a balm for the individuals’ need for a pale shadow of security. When that happens, the individual can only become aware of the illusion that this false egoic security really was, as it did not proceed from his own consciousness and therefore was a placebo that only mirrored his philosophical nature.

            In the mean time, people belong to nations, nations ride on ideologies, those ideologies when confronted through their ingrained expansion mechanisms lead to war using insecurity at the level of the nation.

            The individual is never asked for advice but is told what to believe. Since the individual’s sense of security hangs on the need for his nation/ideology to be prevalent, if that nation/ideology must protect him in the end, he will fight as if he was personally involved.

            Those ideologies that lead to war are based on domination, domination of the territory and that of the people, and are the antithesis of respect, a respect integral.

            Insecurity is Lucifer in disguise and those who nurture it are his minions, consciously or, most likely, unconsciously.

            Of course, historically this is not the exclusivity of the West and this is an important point to be made. It is a ‘human’ attribute, the attribute of the human animal since humanity still proceeds from his material ancestry and not yet from his heavenly reality.

            Realization of respect as a fundamental reality of a karmically cleansed psyche is also the realization that we do not come from treetops.

            Until then, we remain advanced animals.

          4. ‘human’ attributes
            >>”It is a ‘human’ attribute, the attribute of the human animal since humanity still proceeds from his material ancestry and not yet from his heavenly reality.

            Realization of respect as a fundamental reality of a karmically cleansed psyche is also the realization that we do not come from treetops.

            Until then, we remain advanced animals.”

            If identifying the problem really is half of the solution, it’s high time we realized how much of our behavior is still due to instinct.

            One example of many… I recently watched a pbs special on the evolution of man, which pointed out the importance of Lucy, the first known hominid ancestor, walking upright, and thus being better able to predators. If that’s the case, Lucy and her decendants would have a better chance for survival if they instinctively chose taller mates and taller group leaders.

            Today that instinct still manifests. Taller men get promoted faster and get larger salaries, while women still prefer a mate who’s taller than they are, even though we no longer face predators on the savanna.


          5. Instinct
            I can only agree with you Kat.

            Instinct is a driving force, the question then is ‘who is the driver?’.
            Yet, most people will tend to define instinct as an important part of their consciousness that ‘must’ be there, because it is inherently part of their perceived reality, their perception of self.

            Still, instincts do force some directions taken in the impression of having a choice; choices that are allegedly made according to the instinctive program.

            Going against instinct usually will lead to insecurity, therefore this does not appear as a choice. This is an uncontrolled condition that leads to a form of psychic status quo, preventing the individual from exploring avenues that are not part of a ‘natural’ experience.

            If we cannot go against our nature, we remain its captive. How then can someone escape the humanly predicament and yet remain naturally instinctive? We would aspire to be cleansed while carrying a bag of dirt.

          6. another view
            Insecurity, domination, and respect (or lack thereof).

            Another way of saying it, similar with your view of the problem, is perhaps that we have too many followers. Individuals are looking for the right way to do things, and want to be safe. Since the world is big and complicated, they look for father figures, or sometimes mother figures. Once they find one, they can become somewhat childlike again, the world is simpler and more comfortable.

            As for the relative preference of women for tall men – I am sure it goes back to very old instincts. But even today, many women pick their husbands for economic prospects. And if a taller man has better professional prospects, the million old year old reasons have not gone away completely.

            I agree that all these problems resulting from domination and greed are realy. They are pervasive, and seem to be a consequence of “human nature” over the last million years or more.

            And we are not the first ones to realize this. You (Richard) are phrasing this in a novel way perhaps, but I am afraid that it is the same realization.

            I dispair of these things sometimes. We say, let’s be reasonable, and think for ourselves, and make careful judgements. Then we can find crowds of followers who agree, but only listen to what the Big Leader tells them is reasonable and good judgement.

          7. Good points
            As for the realization, it may be that we tend to realize it within others, as a world view or as a peer view, but fail to see it within.

            The realization that others are this or that leads nowhere because it only serves a consciousness of blame where the problems lie elsewhere.

            We whant to change the world but the world can only change when the individual has been changed himself.

            We have no power or authority to change others, it is the destiny of their own consciousness to change in their time.

            The fingerpointing game is a game that keeps us captive of our impression of being right, often meaning that we are right because we can see the wrong in others, without realizing that they can definitely see our wrong, to which we are enamored, especially if it is supported by a larger group.

            The need to a motherly figure as you pointed out, fatherly for others I guess, still points out to the immature self, incapable of taking his own destiny into his hands, defacto rendering mute the very concept of free will.

            We select the easiest sphere of thoughts afforded by our psyche based on the experience of the particular soul in a fight for the prevalence of desires over needs.

            Not only do our desires prevail over others’ needs but they also prevail over our own ‘real’ needs, creating a neverending interior struggle that feeds doubts since desires, which we love to interchange for reality, are cop-outs and can only lead to doubts, at best on the long term.

            These desires also put us at odds with the rest of humanity since desires are not rooted in needs, especially not in the needs of others.

            This makes us particularly strategic creatures, always playing a certain politic of conviction, in an effort of convincing others of the ‘need’ to espouse an ideology that will support our impressions of needs that are our desires.

            Through this mechanism, we warp laws and regulations to support the winning ideologies but, in the end, it is all driven by the individual’s impression of a need, a desire, that demands to be fulfilled, and that cares less about the respect of the right of others to peace and freedom of mind than it does for its own impression of security.

            Then we wonder why there is conflict at the personal level, in families, in a country and, eventually, in the world.

            The reason is simple, the conflict is already part of the individual and that is why it can project it.

            If one cannot dominate oneself, the answer is to dominate the environment and, of course, to not allow being dominated.

          8. Reply to Richard’s ‘good points’
            Hear, hear! Well said, Richard. Regarding desire, you said:

            ‘Not only do our desires prevail over others’ needs but they also prevail over our own ‘real’ needs, creating a neverending interior struggle that feeds doubts since desires, which we love to interchange for reality, are cop-outs and can only lead to doubts, at best on the long term.’

            The difficulty lies in our lack of understanding of who and what we are. Without at least a rudimentary understanding of this, we will remain unable to discriminate what our real needs are, which leads to our inability to discriminate which instincts and desires are useful/good (i.e. which serve our ‘real’ needs), and leads to our attachment to, or inability to be indifferent to, those instincts and desires which do not serve our real needs.

            As you said, ‘We have no power or authority to change others, it is the destiny of their own consciousness to change in their time.’ While it’s true that we can’t force-feed this understanding, we do facilitate it through our efforts to understand and change ourselves. Our collective efforts make these thoughts more accessible.

            For instance, when I first began pondering all this, I didn’t have the advantage (or even the possibility) of being able to find posts like this on the internet. At that time, the only place these thoughts were available to me was in obscure books such as those written by Alice Bailey – which were not only difficult to find, but also difficult to understand. Even now, it’s hard to find a quote from AAB that can be easily understood by someone who hasn’t studied the books extensively, but just to give you a taste of them, here’s one such quote that essentially says the same thing you said above. It’s from The Technique of Indifference, which is part of the AAB book Glamour – A World Problem:

            ‘The disciple learns eventually to know himself to be, above everything else (whilst in incarnation), the director of forces: these he directs from the altitude of the divine Observer and through the attainment of detachment. These are things which I have oft told you before. These truths are, for you, only the platitudes of occultism and yet, if you could but grasp the full significance of detachment and stand serene as the observing Director, there would be no more waste motion, no more mistaken moves and no more false interpretations, no wandering down the bypaths of daily living, no seeing others through distorted and prejudiced vision and – above all – no more misuse of force.’


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.