As a spiritual person whose politics could be described as grass roots socialism I was intrigued by the position that Russell Means was taking. Was he asking questions that were going to help me?
To begin with the first point to note is that of acculturalisation, basically neo-colonialism. The tradition of American Indians is oral history, and by writing as opposed to oral history there is already a power imposition. To add to this “The process (BZ of writing) itself epitomizes the European concept of “legitimate” thinking; what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken”; this is undoubtedly true – our education definitely encourages us to have a belief in books.
And we have to understand that the publishing of books is controlled by the 1% – it is market-driven; Barbara Cartland and Jeffrey Archer pulp is published sooner than erudition. At the same time with publishing the media companies control the distribution, so even if materials are published what the customer perceives as being published (what the average book-consumer sees) is not what is available. I also like this point “the imposing of an abstraction over the spoken relationship of a people.” I have gained a great deal from particular books, to the extent that I have written bookblogs when I study, but the reality is that if I had personal time with such authors I would learn a great deal more.
This issue is one that I have pushed with regards to the internet. Many people, mostly young but not solely, delude themselves that online relationships have similar depths to those of in-person. With the internet now being part of everyday life the depth of human relationships is suffering, a 140-character tweet is communication? It was significant with Adbusters, one of the originators of the US-Occupy, that they were telling people that the internet was not enough. “So what you read here is not what I’ve written. It’s what I’ve said and someone else has written down. I will allow this because it seems that the only way to communicate with the white world is through the dead, dry leaves of a book. I don’t really care whether my words reach whites or not.”
“It takes a strong effort on the part of each American Indian not to become Europeanized“; to paraphrase It takes a strong effort on the part of each individual not to become miseducated (deluded or indoctrinated). But specifically for Russell “the traditional values that our elders retain …. must come from the hoop, the four directions, the relations: it cannot come from the pages of a book or a thousand books. A master’s degree in “Indian Studies” or in “education” or in anything else cannot make a person into a human being or provide knowledge into traditional ways. It can only make you into a mental European, an outsider.” I recall the use of the term “human being” to refer to American Indians as opposed to white people, is that correct? Maybe I will come back to that.
“Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!” This is concerned with the delusion of abstraction, holding to an idea, withdrawing from the “wonderful complexity and spirituality” of life. In these intellectual revolutions he talks of “the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and “leftism” in general. Newton, for example, “revolutionized” physics and the so-called natural sciences by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation. Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these “thinkers” took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into code, an abstraction. Europeans may see this (BZ Marxism) as revolutionary, but American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could.”
“The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person.” How can you kill someone you love? But if you make other people inferior you can treat them badly. This is part of western culture. Look at the terms first, second and third world! These are terms that are used in development, 1st world is more developed than the 3rd so it is acceptable the 3rd dies from hunger. As Walter Rodney – torrent – described the type of development is not intrinsic it is imposed. The levels themselves are subjective, effectively what the first aspire to are the benchmarks – in Russell’s terms what Eurpeans aspire to. I have to say however, Russell, that the trend for the “Europeans” in America is now far worse than the “Europeans” in Europe at this process of cultural imperialism – at this imposed superiority. [ 🙂 – I have just read this “Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here“]
Using natural resources is perceived as a gain from nothing, this means that the ONE planet is effectively considered as nothing by this “European” outlook. I have always used the term capitalist outlook, but I accept that the Marxist model has a “European” feel. Marxism does not require a ONE planet approach, although as a model it does respect human labour. This is an improvement on the “European” model of capitalism in that it respects all human labour, however it does make more of advanced industrial labour as compared to peasant labour. And of course in accepting this industrial model Marxism accepts mass production which is so inherently NOT ONE planet. I am Marxist in the political arena of capitalism but I agree with Russell in his “Human” arena Marxism is lacking. Unfortunately the world now functions in a capitalist arena, and as such a Marxist model is much more applicable – however although as an economic model it is sound its political strategies are now outmoded owing to the changes in the means of mass production.
“This is what has come to be termed “efficiency” in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment–that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one–is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue.” This brings to mind Fritjov Kapra’s “Turning Point”. One chapter in particular he focusses on what he terms the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, this could be paraphrased as the “mechanical model”. He talks of the turning point changing this paradigm, and this I believe Capra now terms the Web of Life. However intellectual one might view Capra, or the notion of One Planet there is some convergence to what Russell Means is talking about.
Being and gaining appears to be a distinction Russell wants to draw, being – spirituality, gaining – materialism. There is no doubt that Marxism is based in materialism (gaining). In defence of Marxism there is a notion of equitability, if not placed in a materialist context such equitability would be spiritual. Moving onto the notion of anarchism or socialist libertarianism these would extend the materialism of Marxism into more of a “spiritual” context. However this would be spiritualism arrived at from an intellectual point of view and therefore not complete. To summarise what is European as predominantly gaining whilst describing the few who have moved beyond gaining to being as exceptions to the rule doesn’t feel right to me – but in truth on reflection I can’t argue. For the simple reason that my arguments tend to involve Europeans who have been influenced by Eastern traditions. If you exclude the Europeans who have been influenced by the East there are very few you could describe as in touch with being – exceptions to the rule. I suppose I have to agree. Emotionally I want to counter but I cannot, so emotionally I ask Russell “Are all American Indians who he does not consider having white minds in touch with their being?”
But then my mind moves to those Europeans who have been influenced by American Indians, and I use licence to extend the description of American Indians to include Toltec Wisdom and therefore include the Four Agreements. I would suggest that Europeans who genuinely follow the Four Agreements would be included on the side of being.
I find this harsh “Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate which they can show a good profit. That’s their ethic, and maybe they will buy some time. Marxists, on the other hand, can be relied upon to develop uranium fuel as rapidly as possible simply because it’s the most “efficient” production fuel available. That’s their ethic, and I fail to see where it’s preferable. Like I said, Marxism is right smack in the middle of European tradition. It’s the same old song.” This doesn’t ring true of the Marxists I knew, but it does fit into Marxist theory as I know it. In the theory there is nothing to prevent the exploitation of the planet for profit so long as that profit is re-distributed. But when you move beyond the theory and see how the people behave, these same Marxists have tended to ally themselves to the Green movement; the theory is lacking but the people themselves tend, and I stress tend, to be closer to be influenced beyond just gaining. It might well be good pro-American Indian politic to place Marxists as conceivably worse than capitalists, but in reality making this statement is more concerned with separation and non-alignment than genuine understanding. Of course the speech was written 30 years ago, and at that time I accept that ecology was not included in the mass movement as it is today. There is no way that the current “left-wing” movement Occupy would be solely interested in gaining.
“You cannot judge the real nature of a European revolutionary doctrine on the basis of the changes it proposes to make within the European power structure and society. You can only judge it by the effects it will have on non-European peoples.” This makes me think, but what? Revolutionary change means a change of class, a genuine change of class in which genuine democracy, grass roots democracy, is the new governmental principle. What effect would that have on non-European peoples? This could only improve the position of American Indian peoples. Let me clarify this democracy as it must include “Occupy” democracy. It is not a democracy of majority votes. I could conceive of a situation in which as a minority American Indians would lose a majority vote but in Occupy democracy I would hope that the majority would see that it was not in the interests of the minority, and allow the minority to persuade – to be included. Fundamentally this quote of Russell’s shows a misunderstanding – it cannot be called a revolution if the current power structure is maintained; if the current power structure is maintained there is no change in the class that rules.
This is because every revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe’s tendencies and abilities to export destruction to other peoples, other cultures and the environment itself. But none of these revolutions have been in class terms, they have usually been wars in which one group of the ruling 1% replaces another whilst soldiers die to enable this. To place a Marxist revolution in the same context as other 1%-change revolutions is not appropriate, and the revolutions in Cuba, Russia and China never produced the desired class change, the power never devolved to the mass movement (he used actions of the USSR on the national question to justify his views). It sounds like Russell is discussing an establishment view of socialism. This is like accepting a European academic’s view of American Indian life as the truth, it seems to me that you cannot understand that lifestyle without understanding being. Whilst Marx was an academic, the mass movement, that is often described as a Marxist movement, cannot be understood without having a feel for the movement itself; don’t describe Occupy – be Occupy.
Later he says, about a different point:- Christians, capitalists, Marxists. All of them have been revolutionary in their own minds, but none of them really means revolution. What they really mean is continuation. They do what they do in order that European culture can continue to exist and develop according to its needs. Implicitly he recognises the true meaning of revolution – as genuine change in class, and further recognises that revolutionary change has not occurred there have just been different continuations. Under genuine democracy there would not be an acceptable solution for the mining that will destroy the American Indians homelands, an inclusive approach would be needed. I can accept that American Indians cannot join with those who adhere to the letter of Marxist theory, but genuine grass-roots socialists would need an inclusive approach that would be arrived at through agreement.
For me “There is the traditional Lakota way and the ways of the American Indian peoples. It is the way that knows that humans do not have the right to degrade Mother Earth, that there are forces beyond anything the European mind has conceived, that humans must be in harmony with all relations or the relations will eventually eliminate the disharmony. ” This is the way of ONE planet, and it is the only way forward for a genuine grassroots democracy. The mass movement is part of Unity, part of Mother Earth – Gaia, and can only survive by recognising that. At present the mass movement is oppressed so its directions are those of greed – Gain. To begin with this might be what a mass movement would gravitate towards, but in the end that would just lead to self-destruction and if the movement develops the listening required of it it would turn to the “Lakota Way”. Of course at present to describe the mass movement in this way appears as pie-eyed idealism.
“All European tradition, Marxism included, has conspired to defy the natural order of all things. Mother Earth has been abused, the powers have been abused, and this cannot go on forever. No theory can alter that simple fact. Mother Earth will retaliate, the whole environment will retaliate, and the abusers will be eliminated. Things come full circle, back to where they started. That’s revolution. And that’s a prophecy of my people, of the Hopi people and of other correct peoples. ” Undoubtedly true.
“It is the role of American Indian peoples, the role of all natural beings, to survive. A part of our survival is to resist. We resist not to overthrow a government or to take political power, but because it is natural to resist extermination, to survive. We don’t want power over white institutions; we want white institutions to disappear. That’s revolution. ”
“we want white institutions to disappear.” Is that what I want? That is not easy to answer because the institutions and the 1% are so intertwined. The more I think of it the better the question the harder the answer. Factories, talking of Marx, – mass production; do we want mass production? To begin with we say yes, economies of scale and so on. But look at what is happening in factories. Environmental degradation. Does it have to be that way? Even that can’t be answered straight-forwardly? With the 1% in charge it is that way because they don’t care about Gaia. If they’re not in charge, can mass production work? Let’s start with food as that is easy, for food the answer is no. Mass production means unhealthy food – preservatives colourings etc. For medicine the 1% have turned medicine into making people ill for profit, can we produce natural medicine in factories? It doesn’t feel right, but maybe. Clothes can be made in factories, and probably cheaper, but we have to kick the 1% out first to get rid of exploitative working practices. Technology can only be made in factories. To remove factories would mean regressing on technology – that feels negative.
Hospitals – controlled by the 1% – makes them profits, teaches drug-dependent medicine. Can hospitals be homepathic rather than allopathic? Education fits people into business and industrial jobs – does not teach; but could teach. So when you ask the question the answer is that the European institutions are at present negative, need they be negative? No. Have they ever not been negative? Again, no. Simplistic Russell Means answer, I don’t want European institutions, but the answer cannot be simple.
“And when the catastrophe is over, we American Indian peoples will still be here to inhabit the hemisphere.” Will they? To begin with my answer was no. Whilst I suspect any catastrophe will obliterate the cities, there will be sufficient of the 1% who will have made provision. But then again without minions to take their load will the 1% survive? What happens when money loses currency. So my answer is that I agree, I am too dependent on money – and too old so I won’t be there. That’s OK though. Natural catastrophe to reshape the world or my death is a no brainer, I’m rooting for the Indigenous, the Gaians, the people of ONE planet.
Like this:- “We have a term for these people; we call them “apples”–red on the outside (genetics) and white on the inside (their values). Other groups have similar terms: Blacks have their “oreos”; Hispanos have “Coconuts” and so on. And, as I said before, there are exceptions to the white norm: people who are white on the outside, but not white inside. I’m not sure what term should be applied to them other than “human beings.” ” I would like to think I am a human being but am I?
Posts Tagged ‘Corporatocracy’
Tags: Corporatocracy, division, intellect, Occupy
Tags: apartheid, Corporatocracy, intellect
Here is an interesting documentary on apartheid by Pilger:-
It was made in the late 90’s and it questions the liberation struggle. For me Pilger showed his Trot roots but at the same time there were aspects of his humanity that make his Trotskyism difficult to dismiss.
Before getting into the main theme of this blog I want to ask the question “what did the Trots want to see as the end of Apartheid?” One can understand criticisms that the Freedom Charter was dismissed in favour of maintaining the previous economic system, he later referred to as Global Apartheid, whose current term Occupy has given as 1%. But to maintain the Freedom Charter would have seen the end of money in South Africa, would have seen white flight, and would have left a destitute country along the lines of what I perceive Zimbabwe is now. Did Pilger want South Africa to be the same as the rest of sub-Saharan Africa – the rest of Bantu Africa? What do we have there? Black puppet dictatorships with the power-elites of those countries treating their black countrymen as bad as, if not worse than, the white supremacists of South Africa. It is this reality that I saw. Before going to Botswana I hated the Afrikaaner accent – this was my western socialism. Once in Africa I saw the damage that the puppet dictators were doing to their own people, and the only complaints in the West was that their donor money was being misappropriated. South Africa continues to be a player in the world economy, all of its people have benefitted to some extent although it is quite clear that a number of richer blacks have been bought off. But of course this was to be expected. What did the Civil Rights Movement produce in America? A wealthy black middle-class. Pilger is right to expose what has happened (1998), and probably continues to happen (2013).
Pilger alluded to some of the following, should he have done more? For the West the apartheid struggle was totally liberal. By this I mean that the western version of the struggle was concerning the liberal issue of race. It was the abhorrence of racial difference being enshrined in a constitution that raised the sheckles of western liberals. If one were to look round other parts of Africa at the time you would see poverty, you would see huge disparities of wealth, and you would see economic systems in these countries that enriched a few in the country and maintained the flow of profits to western multinationals – bog standard neo-colonial exploitation. Apart from putting a snip in the Oxfam envelope these scenarios did not disturb western liberals. But South Africa did because the rulers were white and they maintained a white power over blacks. This horrified the western middle-classes. Western governments had to hide their allegiances – Maggie was a friend of white South Africa but never made a public display of it even though she displayed horrendous behaviour to her own working-class.
The issue was always liberal – middle-class. So when it ended there was no interest amongst white middle-classes to see a class revolution, they wanted a liberal model and Mandela delivered that. And the ANC continues to deliver that.
However for the very same reasons of liberalism this was an important victory for the world’s middle-classes – and therefore for the 1%. Middle-class liberals who boycotted SA produce, who supported Gleneagles, can turn round and say they were part of a victory, a liberal victory in which race was not part of the constitution. But South Africa continues to work within the Global 1%, South Africa is now the same exploited model that the UK is. A country of wage-slaves in which a few make profits. The 99% suffer the same in South Africa as they do in the UK as they do in Europe, as they do in the US. In all these countries the middle-classes are bought off, and are just higher-paid wage slaves. But they perceive themselves as choosing their work, choosing their professions, choosing which type of wage-slavery. Since apartheid South Africa is the same with the same liberal attitudes. The whites can have their liberal issues, they can complain that the wealthy don’t care enough for the people, and can campaign liberally (especially all aspects of ecology is a proud issue in white SA) without the discomfort of knowing that race is constiutionalised.
But none of what is now accepted is a solution. The middle-class are wage-slaves globally but because of their share of the pickings they consider themselves different from the working-class – 99%. This divide is important in maintaining exploitation by the 1%. Working together the 99%, working-class and middle-class, might be able to do something; as the 99% our struggles are the same. Separated nothing will happen. As always political analysis comes down to recognising that the only possible way forward is Unity, politically as the 99% – and spiritually we are ONE planet.
Tags: Corporatocracy, Insight, intellect
I recently watched Homeland series 3, and found it very gripping. I noted from the beginning of Homeland that it was originally an Israeli series so was prepared for propoganda. Undoubtedly throughout the series there was such propoganda, primarily anti-Islam. There is a subtle distinction drawn in the rhetoric of western governments that it is Islamic terrorists that they are targetting. But when you see the actions of the western military this is clearly not the case. When you see the rise in Islamophobia since 9/11 you can see what the reality is.
Since the post-war creation of Israel the country’s media has developed an anti-Arab position. Their target is Arabia, and more recently has moved beyond the Arab world – to the wider Muslim world starting with Iran. The Israeli view presented through their propoganda is that the Muslim world is the aggressor. They then claim that the media is biased against them, and as far as I know the majority of Israelis accept this. The power and influence of the Israeli lobby in the West is such that many westerners believe similar. Personally I have no doubts at all that the aggressors in the Middle East are the Zionist regime backed by international business – the 1%. On such matters I will not be able to persuade you nor will I try to. I would ask only that you read widely and use insight, not emotion, to reflect on what you read.
Homeland is anti-Islam, and not anti-terrorist. At the time that Brody was a bomber, his preparation for bombing was the prayer mat. What association does that bring? I have heard racism that Muslims are happy to die as suicide bombers because in heaven they will be heroes. No-one is happy to commit suicide, in the same way no-one is happy to go to war. They see it as duty or moral imperative. What imperative drives someone to commit suicide? They must feel so desperate.
In this 3rd series I ask “what do you think of Venezuela?” It’s a half-built slum run by crooks who can shoot Imams. I have never been to Caracas. It is a country I am interested in because of democratic advances made as described in this film Beyond Elections – and others. When I listened to the background noise of Caracas I heard an Arab city. Did you hear that, or is just me? What associations are we being asked to draw?
If I analyse Homeland too much paranoia could be perceived. I don’t want that perception (I am not paranoid!!! ) nor am I encouraging such analysis. Analysis is a waste of time without sound insight as a base. Homeland was gripping, good television, at least I thought so. More and more it seems to me what is coming out in mainstream media and movies is that they are better made and more gripping. I suppose it is only natural that this happens. The entertainment industry is getting more and more powerful, and I would suggest that this influence is being recognised more and more by the 1%; as such there is more investment in that influence. The quality of the programmes in their terms as described by words such as gripping must come from experience as workers learn more about their craft. Through the media I would suggest that it is impossible to analyse the truth, what is needed is insight – discernment based on insight.
Here is a documentary called Subconscious war (download or watch):-
. For me this clearly shows that war is being presented as acceptable to western culture. Drones are the most heinous weapons, and with video games drone operators are being trained. If a young “patriot” is already into “shoot-em-up”, it takes little indoctrination to accept atrocity by drone. It just needs the people to be quiet for this to happen; there will always be a few who will operate such machines, but the people don’t have to be quiet. Insight can never be a solution for the drone operators, media and indoctrination of the few is way too powerful. But maybe insight is enough for the rest. The 1% control the media, there is no way that we can ever consider the media as offering balanced debate – no matter how much the presenters delude themselves. We have to see through this process, and we have a tool for that – insight. We will never be taught this insight, any efforts at mainstream teaching of insight will be appropriated and diverted. But it is not something that can be taught, it can only be learnt through experience – travel – and brought more under control by meditation. Insight.
Here is a more analytical view of what is happening, Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent:-
His analysis of neo-liberalism and the media is very clear and inarguable. So why do people disagree? Emotional reasons, prior beliefs, indoctrination. It would take a world of Chomskys to make those people believe, and then there would only be agreement because the majority say. We need to see analysis, but without the insight the analysis will just pass us by. Don’t get hooked on analysis, intellectualism, a set of beliefs as a means of overcoming what we are subjected to, they will never work. Insight is the only thing that has a chance of working.
Tags: Corporatocracy, enquiry
This is a response to Dottie again:- “I wish more people would document their journeys, as writing allows us to be “specific” about our problems, which can sometimes help us connect the dots… And of course, details might help others delve into similar problems of their own.”
Obviously I agree with you about documentation – keeping a record. Well there are a number of reasons why people do not keep a record of their healing. With blogging people have begun to write more but I suspect they are for people who like writing – like me. But in this world of money, money, money, I think bloggers often seek recompense, and this alters the tone of their blogs. But even with this free access to having blogs read (if only by a limited number of people), people are unwilling to explore their experience. Firstly I think this is fear but secondly I feel that they are not taught to value their own experience. In the case of people who go on a healing or spiritual journey, this experience is extremely valuable.
As we know medicine sees healing as a pill or a slash – although in the case of trauma slashing is valid. But we are all different. Whilst our bodies are fundamentally the same and react the same way to nutrition through food – fundamentally, there are also many things that are different. How much those people do meditation and energy work for one. And then of course there is the universal difference that affects health – lifestyle.
In science there is an interesting word to describe the validity of this personal experience, and that is case study. The method of quantitative analysis can present data that would validate the use of a pill by describing success or failure, but as human beings we are far too complex for that. Science has moved far more to qualitative analysis and the use of case studies especially in the social sciences – case studies were a requirement of an education masters I did in the 90s. So a question might be asked of medicine which is more appropriate – quantitative or qualitative? For people who understand the holistic nature of healing, the answer has to be qualitative. Of course in medicine BigPharma would not encourage a wholesale change to the recognition of the importance of case studies, because they are seeking validation of their cure by pill approach. At the same time when one looks at medicine from a more holistic viewpoint such as case studies, the major issue of side effects would be seen. As usual this is an example where finance has controlled science and prevented science from examining the relevant information that would emerge from case studies – qualitative analysis.
Another way that describes the importance of these case studies is the nature of the empirical data. All data is valid, and the observation of all that happens adds to understanding. But typically scientific method tries to control what we observe ostensibly to remove “other factors” but in practice as a reinforcement of the very method itself. This control is carried out through what is termed “Design of Experiments” – or it was when I learned about it. This design is effectively a limiting process in order to focus on the particular detail that the hypothesis wishes to examine. Is this method valid? Or perhaps a better question would be, should the experiment not involve case studies and afterwards find a valid method for focussing on the detail? To me the control in experiments that occurs in the design ignores so much valid information, information that is intentionally eschewed by the design because the scientist through the hypothesis does not want to see this information as a contributory factor; in my view this eschewing should occur after the data – case study – has been gathered.
Some might say that scientific investigation ought to examine all and discard what is not relevant – with appropriate reasoning. This would not suit BigPharma with its focus on the pill, nor BigFood with its need to avoid the effects of the toxins. This method works fine with weapons – they kill or not. So blogging inordinately is a negative salute to prevailing scientific method, and that is a justification for my going on so much. 🙂
Tags: Corporatocracy, division, history, intellect
This analysis is based on an understanding of Howard Zinn’s book – as well as my own understanding of the mass movement and socialism. I am stuck in an awful storm. I was on my way to Chan for my latest Fang Kem when the rain came. Despite my recent immune system weakness based on hormonal balance I refuse to accept limitations of my freedom based on health. It is my view that healing will occur through acupuncture, and developing the required balance through personal healing and recognising what is contributing to the hormonal balance – not just sex hormones!! The last few days the weather has been nice – good times especially at the beach, but today was a reminder that the rainy season is not over. Normally I would just ride in the rain but I was forced to stop – I couldn’t see and there was a wind. I stopped in a Khlung coffee shop, phoned the doctor, and ended up reading Howard Zinn.
There are strong indications that the Libertarians are based in the movement of US leaders against the British. But to be clear these early Libertarians were not fighting for freedom for the American people, they were fighting for freedom from the British. It is important to recognise the colonial structure prior to 1776 – Declaration of Independence. Despite the portrayed religious image, the British people who went to America were funded to go there for profiteering. The Conquistadores went for gold, but the later whites went for the profits to be gained from the land. Over time there developed a typical colonial structure in which some whites profited from the relationship with their colonial masters, but other educated people (middle-classes) saw the injustices for themselves and wanted their bit of the cake. The struggle for independence was not a class struggle in which the American people were founding a government for themselves, but a struggle in which one group of usurpers were replacing another, the US middle-classes who were less favoured than the British puppets.
When you have such a conflict – between 2 ruling classes, rhetoric is needed because each class needs ordinary people to fight their battles. Who was to fight the British soldiers? But the American people, who bought into the Declaration of Independence, were no less duped than the same British soldiers they were fighting; no less duped than the soldiers who fight today in the wars for profits that benefit the corporatocray.
When you listen to Libertarians today, what are you listening to? The same liberal middle classes who were trying to overthrow the British and their puppets. These are people who do not want a change of class in which government is by the people, they want a free-for-all in which the regulations of government that maintain the corporatocracy are withdrawn enabling a new ruling-class to gain control. But what is the nature of this new libertarian ruling-class? No change. This is not a power structure in which the people come first, it is a power structure in which different rulers can old power. They don’t want regulation because they don’t want restrictions. Freedom as a principle sounds wonderful but if there are no checks and balances for those less fortunate then there is no freedom. And by fortunate I am not simply talking about money. At present the Libertarians complain about the corporatocracy – understandable that is the ruling class. How does the corporatocracy rule? Bullying by the richest – typical being the way contributions dominate elections in so-called western democracies. So less fortunate means less money. But if Libertarians are genuinely concerned about the people, they would also be interested in those less fortunate because of race, creed and colour, they would be interested in providing a society in which those with disabilities of whatever form can still function in their society, in a society that is caring. This is genuine freedom for all.
What is useful about seeing the roots of libertarianism is to see that there is no change now. When libertarian approaches were first introduced – Declaration of Independence, these approaches were designed to replace the existing ruling-class with another. Howard Zinn points out that this same Libertarian class were running a tightrope in which they were trying to fuel the independence zeal of the poor but without actually giving the poor power. This is an equally valid description of libertarianism today, they have policies which entice the poor but which will never actually empower them.
And this is also a strong pointer as to why libertarians are so vehement in their attacks on socialism. Socialism has one proviso that does not work for those who wish to change the ruling-class – from corporatocrats to libertarians, socialism requires that the mass movement comes first. Ultimately that means all people need to be free but it requires the people come first and not an abstract principle of freedom where deregulation allows for repossessions etc. as collateral damage to a principle.
Once you see that socialism and libertarianism conflict, you can begin to see why there is so much funding for libertarians. At the same time if you examine historically the class of libertarians you can see that funding for them is just the ruling class funding itself. Whilst libertarians might see the corporatocracy as their enemy, the corporatocracy see libertarians as allies. Quite simply the corporatocracy knows there is only one way they can lose control. They need compliant people to make their profits, without a workforce and without consumers there is no corporatocracy. That is the fear of the 1%. That is why Occupy is fought with brutal police tactics, because Occupy is mass movement.
And that is why they will continue to fund the Sons of Liberty to write that socialism is dead. It is why they will continue to fund libertarian scholars such as von Mises to rewrite what is socialism. Why do so many scholars fail to see the distinction between socialism and communism? Why do so many scholars fail to analyse why the Soviet Union failed? Why China failed? And then equate that failure with the death of socialism? Why do scholars fail to draw a distinction between socialism and state socialism? Why is there so much confusion about a word that is so clear – an approach that benefits the mass movement. All the theories that the academics and idealists put in the way of the mass movement are funded. It is the intention that these words be confused, that the ideas confuse.
Through the 70s and 80s the British Labour party were famous for shooting themelves in the foot. Once the Bilderberg Veil, movie – Lifting the Veil, were aware that their puppets such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were going to support their interest rather than the interests of the mass movement, they allowed the Conservative party to be divided over Europe. Primarily Blair then went ahead fighting their wars for profit under a supposed socialist banner of the Labour party. Sponsored academy then began to confuse Blair’s corporatocratic policies with socialism increasing speculation that socialism is dead. What is important for these Bilderbergers is the need to ensure that there is no mass movement organisation that will unite their workforce and their consumers – no organisation will remove the control by the corporatocracy. When there is no flagship of socialism for organised labour to unite behind their work is done. No matter how many intellectuals write that there is Bilderberg and conspiracies the Veil does not care, because there is NO organisation. The working-class movement needs leaders not intellectualism. These leaders need to be accountable within an appropriate genuine democratic structure, and not tokens ready to be bought off – Blair in the Quartet, Brown in Education(?).
And we have other stooges who muddy the pool of understanding. What about Alec Jones? Tons of money, and plenty of sound criticism of the corporatocracy and Bilderberg. But equally critical of socialism and mass movement organisations. People of this ilk – funded system critics alternative intellectuals – are significant because they are so divisive. There are not large numbers of these people, but their work populates the internet, and intellectuals succumb to the view that these people are both knowledgeable and a powerbase because of their funded presence. But integral to their whole approach is a criticism of socialism, the reason they are being funded.
And what do these funded idealists give reverence to – the Founding Fathers, the intellectuals who developed the constitution, the intellectuals who provided the rhetoric that duped the poor into fighting for these alternative rulers. The people rallied behind the Declaration of Independence, fought the wars of independence, and accepted the chattels of the new American ruling class. And as this American ruling class has gained power, money and become the corporatocracy, the Libertarians turn again to the same rhetoric to get the people to rally behind them. Do they want them as an army to fight the corporatocracy? Maybe not, but they do want the corporatocracy undermined so the Libertarians can take over. Not the people, the mass movement, the socialists BUT the Libertarians. Make no mistake, these Sons of Liberty are true to their historical roots – a different shade of ruling class.
Today is grey and dismal at the beach.With the wind there is a slanting drizzle that is continually giving the occasional spatter on my face. Kleun yaai – the waves are a bit high, unless there is a change I suspect there will be no exercise. But things can quickly change for the better – or worse. Should I pay attention to this? Of course not, it is still good to be here, but the realisation of the mindful ignorance is quite disturbing. But then with the dog problem and health issues my meditation has not been good, and I am letting this get to me. How weak!!
I am not therefore feeling particularly spiritual so I looked at a book which I have referred to Howard Zinn’s A Peoples’ History of the United States. It is a significant book in the jigsaw of history, I suspect I will be too ill-disciplined to finish it. The first book I read which taught me to understand history is Walter Rodney’s “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”. This might well best be understood if read in conjunction with Basil Davidson’s Africa (Basil’s Guardian Obituary). “Africa” is a wonderful series talking about the history of Africa, an Africa which contemporaneously compared with Europe was civilised. Here is the series:-
Walter Rodney gave a much more economic analysis of the process including bringing it up-to-date (Second World War) with the exploitations of the then multinationals of the corporatocracy explaining the division of the cake that was the first world war. Now this book describes Africa and its development as a European colony (derivation of colony is farm). At the time I studied this book and the series Africa, I wanted to understand UK race relations. Primarily the race issues in the UK in the 70s revolved around British racism and the Afro-Caribbean communities who were encouraged to migrate to the UK post-second world war to do the lesser paid jobs that could not be filled because of the decimation of the white population in the second world war.
The First World War was primarily fought between Britain and France and Germany. France had its colonies known as Francophone Africa – basically West Africa except for Ghana and Nigeria. Britain fundamentally colonised the rest of black Africa (Bantu) except for the Arab colonies of North Africa, excluding the German and Belgian colonies. This is an over-simplistic analysis.
The weather is miserable, the heavens have opened, the horizon is grey; if I were to go home now I would be soaked – I will probably be soaked anyway.
But this British history is effectively the second colonial stage because it misses out an important historical process – finance. The book that brings finance into the picture before British colonial history is Eduardo Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America”. He introduces key figures of colonial history – the conquistadores. These often-lauded figures of history, Cortes, Pizarro, Columbus and others were sponsored to go “East” to find gold. After the decimation of Latin American civilisations of the Incas and Aztecs who contemporaneously had historically been far in advance of their European counterparts, this gold was brought back to Spain. From my school history along comes the hero Francis Drake to fight the nasty Spanish who had nasty people like the Spanish Inquisition. This belies the real history where the English wanted Spanish gold. Then there were the heroes and legends that were pirates in the Caribbean. Basically the Spanish were killing the indigenous people for their gold and the British were stealing that gold from the Spanish. It was this gold that sponsored the underdevelopment of Africa, once Spain had been overthrown.
Once the finance had been sourced the historical picture fits together more clearly, but no history can leave out the current hegemony – the US, and this is where Howard Zinn’s book comes in. Columbus so-called discovery of America was the murder of Arawak Indians to loot the gold his sponsors had desired. Columbus began the stream of exploiters who were US heritage. A leopard cannot change its spots – the US started as and continues to be the harbinger of exploitation that became the global hegemony towards the end of the Second World War (as described at Bretton Woods and in the Marshall plan). Some of this US history is discussed here. For a more detailed understanding of the rise of the US read Howard Zinn’s book.
The accumulation of the gold in Europe primarily Britain gave rise to the banking dynasties, for a description of their place in history check the Money Masters.
Between the banking institutions, the Military Industrial Complex and the owners of the Transnationals we have the basis of the corporatocracy. These people maintain political control through their satrapies. These satrapies are sham democracies manipulated as a dual choice between democrat and republican, labour and conservative etc as clearly explained in the movie, Lifting the Veil. There is no choice for the people only the better shade of puppetry.
Placing The Orient in the context of this history is difficult for me – I am not knowledgeable enough. Chinese history is long. Perhaps China’s civilisations predated those of Africa and Latin America. China is the key player in Oriental history but that is not to dismiss the developments in other countries. China was significant in European history as it was from China the Europeans got the gun. The Orient was primarily a trading partner rather than colonially exploited. This could be understood through the Silk Route and others. There were various European colonies such as Indonesia and Malaysia, there was an attempt to colonise China – that failed in the Boxer revolution. I have no coherent picture of the East, and nowhere to point you – sorry.
This movie, Harvest of Empire brings up-to-date the effects of contemporary US foreign policy. Starting with the murder and enslavement of the Native Americans (Indians) as described by Howard Zinn’s “Peoples-history-of-the-united-states-1492-present”, the movie shows how dependent the US is on Latino workers to maintain their standard of living. I was amused when Juan Gonzalez (from Democracy Now said that by the end of this century more US citizens will have Latino origins than European. And yet now all the government does is maintain a legal regime that prevents citizenship, allowing legal exile and continued impoverishing wage-slavery.
I was rather disappointed with the position on Nicaragua. It was clearly stated that the Sandinista revolution was a Peoples’ revolution – people from diverse backgrounds, and it was equally clearly stated that Reagan, and not Carter, chose to finance the Contras. But then the movie focussed on Luis Enrique, a famous Nicaraguan singer – apparently, who fled to the US because his family could not choose sides. At that point it came across that at that stage of the Nicaraguan struggle both sides were equally to blame. Now the theme of the movie is to present the situation that the US economy depends on Latino labour, that that labour is in the US because of US foreign policy that had created and supported puppet dictators who murdered their own people, but to place the Sandinistas and Contras as equally at fault at the time of Luis Enrique is almost traitorous. The Sandinista revolution to me was the clearest example of a democratic overthrow of a dictatorship, on a par with the people supporting Castro; Juan, tell me what could the Sandinistas have done at the time of Luis Enrique? Didn’t the Sandinistas have a democratic mandate far higher than any ballot box, a mandate where the majority of Nicaraguan peoples of all classes supported the sandinistas led by Daniel Ortega?
The movie finished with the figures that there will be 130 million Latinos, 1/3 of the US population, by 2050. “Ït is an immigrant nation”. The movie does not discuss policy, a means for change. With the global inequality of wealth what is going to happen? Does this notion of immigrant nation mean that existing Americans, however that is defined nationality-wise, must accept that there is to be an ever-increasing influx of Latino peoples? Where is the practicality in such an approach? During the movie there were several quotes from bigots from all status in US society. If the choice is between bigotry and continuous influx, then more and more have to accept bigotry; the approach must be practical. US foreign policy that brought the immigrants, but this reality cannot give a “human right” for all of the world’s Latinos. The situation of illegality is inhuman, advantages only big business, and is no solution. But what is?
I saw signs for the Dream Act, what is it?
This is taken from wiki “Dream Act”, and here is the Dream Act portal. But this looks like a bog-standard buying off of the intellectuals who are the leaders of immigration rights, and does nothing for workers who are not educated.
In the second part of the 5th Agreement Don Ruiz discusses the 4 Attentions.
IST ATTENTION – Victims:-
Dreaming without awareness. “The adults prepare us to be a part of our society, and I can say without a doubt that it’s a society ruled completely by lies. We learn to live in the same dream they live in; our faith gets trapped in the structure of that dream, and that dream becomes normal for us. But I don’t believe that they did this with any bad intention. ” [p76]. This lack of intention is prevalent throughout the work on 4 Agreements (and 5th), and this irritates me. Whilst the victims are not aware there are victims who are taking advantage of other victims. Using the description of society’s ethos as the corporate paradigm it is quite clear that there within the category of unaware people there are victimisers and victims. The people who are victimising might be equally unaware of the dream, but their intention is to exploit and that exploitation is still part of the dream. But the hurt they cause cannot be ignored simply because they are unaware of the dream process. Because someone is deluded in thinking that collecting fiat money in offshore bank accounts is meaningful, it dies not mean that this person is guilty of victimising, a victimising that includes wars. The hurt, death and destruction that are caused by the way they use their lies does not change because they are unaware. And if these victimisers were beginning to become aware through the 4 Agreements (5) then the damage they do would start to be reduced. But such an important part of life for those who are not aware of the dream should not be dismissed simply because the perpetrators are unaware of the dream. Compassion is part of the awareness that we are dreaming.
“If we had said, “No, thank you, I am already God,” we would still be living in Paradise, but we answered, “Yes, I want to be like God.”” [p79] I am not God, I am an integral part of Nature. This statement has the same worrying arrogance that was ACIM – A Course in Miracles. Tan Ajaan teaches Idapaccayata, that all is cause and effect, and he describes the “God” of Buddhism as Idapaccayata. No problem with this. If I didn’t have such an ego I would simply be part of Nature, part of the global cause and effect. There would be no dream in this ego-less state, quite simply how many people can say I am God without accruing some ego? There would be a constant change accepted through Insight – cause and effect. I don’t like this use of God, as I didn’t with ACIM – although in ACIM it seemed to me that belief in ourselves as being God was the source of power for miracles, such a risky state of mind especially for the arrogance of educated westerners.
However wanting to be like God is a worse state of mind, always searching. Doing the best you can isn’t searching, that appears to me to be the only valid use of perfection. Accepting who I am and doing the best I can with that, how perfect is that?
“Awareness is the key to coming back to life, and it’s one of the main masteries of the Toltec. Awareness takes you out of the dream of the first attention, into the dream of the second attention, where you rebel against all the lies that are ruling your head. You rebel, and the whole dream starts changing.” [p81]
Second Attention – Warriors:-
“Toltec call the dream of the second attention …. the dream of the warriors, because now we declare a war against all the lies in our knowledge [p83]”.
“Perhaps we no longer believe in Apollo, we no longer believe in Zeus, we no longer believe in Osiris; but we believe in justice, we believe in liberty, we believe in democracy. These are the names of the new gods. We give our power to these symbols, we take them to the realm of the gods, and we sacrifice our lives in the name of these gods [p83].” This is not acceptable as written. It is good that we forget traditional Gods – his use of the Greek myths, but the tone of this tends to dismiss justice, liberty and democracy. No dream is acceptable if there is no justice liberty or democracy within it, nor for that matter compassion etc. But it is not acceptable to hold these as belief systems. If we are using Insight – seeing the Truth, then there is justice freedom and democracy in the way we live, however if we take positions such libertarianism then we have a problem. Beliefs such as libertarianism create prisons for our Insight, barriers for communication as they become the castle walls to be defended at all costs – creating rhetoric dementia (Doris Lessing in the Shikasta novels), wriggling sophistry and often ludicrous positions – positions of idealism that hurt people in the name of the
“Human sacrifice is happening all the time, all around the world, and we can see the result: We see violence, we see crime, we see jails full of people, we see war, we see the dream of hell in humanity because we believe in so many superstitions and distortions in our knowledge. Humans create wars, and we send our young to be sacrificed in those wars. Many times they don’t even know what they are fighting for. [p84]” When I first read his description of human sacrifice I didn’t grasp it, but this paragraph so wonderfully describes what happens as a consequence of the acceptance of the dream of the corporatocracy.
You might describe my use of corporatocracy as a belief system, it certainly appears to be so. The word corporatocracy is a description of a political system in which the rich in Big Business and Finance control the politicians to further enable their profits. But examine the social reality, is this not happening at the present moment in time? A moment later, examine it again, has this changed? At the time of the First World War was it a corporatocracy? Much less so. Powerful finance families (Rothschild, Rockefeller etc.) were in control but countries were much more central in their means of control as they fought for their cake in Africa. At the end of that war the finance families did not want to lose their profits so the peace treaties left Germany with some power. Between the wars finance capital bolstered business during Hitler’s rise to power, and during the Second World War these businesses benefitted through huge profits whilst human sacrifices abounded. Since the Second World War profits have accrued to these families, whilst various wars have been fought. Recent global financial catastrophe saw huge mismanagement of the banking system yet western governments gave away huge amounts of money to bolster the banking system under the pretence of “trickle-down capitalism” creating jobs, and those individuals in charge of the banking system simply took that money and put it in their own offshore accounts. This is corporatocracy evolving but it is simple – see the Truth of corporatocracy at this moment in time. But don’t hold to the word as a belief system, analysis must continually evolve the understanding – continually evaluate the Truth.
So why bother with this analysis as it risks becoming the dream of a victim? Because a warrior must examine the Truth of the society or world they live in. Failure to do this is failure to see all the Truth. Political ideals are a huge problem because when they are fixated they become belief systems, and hence a hindrance to our happiness, a hindrance to seeing the Truth. Using Insight to analyse is a permanent process, adhering to words like corporatocracy is not a problem so long as that adherence is a process of understanding. And if socially our world starts not to be controlled by Big Finance then our analysis must be ready to change its view of what is the Truth. Insight is essential for this and meditation can help with the seeing.
“The way to measure the impeccability of your word is by your emotional reaction. Are you happy or are you suffering? If you’re enjoying your dream or suffering your dream, it’s because you’re creating it that way. Yes, your parents, your religion, the schools, the government, the entire society helped you to create your dream, and it’s true that you never had a choice. But now you have a choice. You can create heaven, or you can create hell. Remember, both are states of mind that exist within you.[p85]” This is so important because it makes you responsible for your happiness. Of course the corporatocracy and everything else creates problems but you don’t have to internalise these problems, and especially you don’t have to make them problems for others. This is the Trots issue again; they rant and rage at everyone for not accepting their belief system – their dream. But they don’t have to impose on others, they don’t have to make others unhappy. Their knowledge can be beneficial because their understanding can help us break free of early conditioning, but the truth is if they are so unhappy why would anyone want to copy them? Instead of helping people break free, their ranting and raving has the opposite effect – alienation. Surely the measure of your control of the dream is your own happiness, if you are not happy where is the validity of your dream? Whilst it is evidently true of Trots, it is also true of others who want to impose belief systems. Some of the alternative belief systems produce happiness, even if that happiness appears “spacey”. But other alternatives just produce anger and frustration. In fact many of these political “alternatives” I agree with because once you start to question then the system pack of lies simply collapses leading to these “alternative” idea systems. But that collapse doesnt help you if it is not replaced with happiness, and doesn’t that happiness come from an internal acceptance of what is – Insight – in 4 Agreements terminology “seeing the Truth”? If not, how else do you get it? Does filling your head with ideas bring happiness?
“You start to realise that you are the artistic creator of your life. You are the one who creates the canvas, the paint, the paintbrush, and the art. You are the one who gives meaning to every stroke on the canvas of your life. You are the one who invests all your faith in your art. And you say, “The story I’m creating is beautiful, but I don’t believe it anymore. I don’t believe my story or anybody else’s story. I can see that it’s just art. [p88]” I don’t fully grasp this, or is it that I don’t agree? What do I agree with? I am the artistic creator of my life, for sure. I must take responsibility for everything that I do. Does that mean that my self creates – definitely not as self is not real. I am part of Nature and when self is not blocking that Nature creates the artwork. But it is an illusion because Nature creates it as a temporary dream for BillZ, the quality of that dream depends on how much self is in the dream. Can any dream be real? The dream of anatta? In other words, if there is any dream there is no anatta, no enlightenment, only increasing awareness as we pay attention to awakening from the dream and seeing the Truth. Because the dream is temporary it is not real – anicca. I don’t believe in it because I don’t believe in anything. It is in this life that I experience. I don’t believe it because I don’t grasp at what I do, what I experience I just get on with it. What I do is what I do, it is for me and that’s it. What is there to believe in? When I want something I establish a framework, a target, and this wanting causes problems; if I don’t want anything and just do that’s enough.
Tags: 4 Agreements, Anatta, Corporatocracy, enquiry, intellect, khandas
I have been working through my blogs to try to make my writings more accessible (discussed here).
There is an issue of separation that is causing me concern. To me understanding anatta is completely important, I both believe in anatta and am beginning to understand it – the first not being important.
So somehow I am looking for no-self, an apparently infeasible notion. This means I am trying to get rid of self (a sentence with a language problem already). So self arises because I become attached to various experiences that in Buddhism would be described as khandas, as a result I build up I – self. So I try not to attach but attachment occurs – attachment that could be called clinging. In about I could have given these as separate tags – anatta attachment and clinging, but I have called it anatta; as anatta was something I began to understand through Ajaan Buddhadasa this is discussed a great deal on the Tan Ajaan page as well as at the tag anatta.
But then everything on my Path is anatta, so is that my only tag for everything? An important area for me in blogging is the ego’s misplaced emphasis on intellectual processes. This arises from an establishment education process that focuses on presenting information or ideas, and not on the importance of creativity – mainly insight. There is an Insight page. Note my description as misplaced emphasis on intellectual processes arising from miseducation, I am not dismissing the processes of reason etc. out of hand but stating that the emphasis is misplaced. This lack of balance is common-place amongst those whose ego dominates – especially in western education. I was in discussions with one person in academia who was trying to seek insight. I noticed an inability to delineate between insight and intellect processes, and in his case he was unwilling to stop clinging to his descriptions of the academic intellect despite his desire to understand insight. But I will always remember an observation he made, he said my blogs were intellectual. Because my blogs often develop from an insight in meditation, I was initially emotionally offended but then I realised how helpful that comment was. Once you write the blogs (express the insight) they become ideas, they become static. The learning has moved beyond insight into ideation, and at that point need to be let go. Academia develops a process of clinging to ideas. It is the ideas that they write about, it is the ideas of the professor that the climbers adhere to to keep their jobs.
There are other academic processes such as dialogue. Dialogue is a wonderful means to an end, it is the way we learn from each other. But there has to be a purpose to this dialogue, and that is a mutual desire for learning from each other – it helps with enquiry. I prefer to think of dialogue as a genuine enquiry to reach a mutual conclusion. There are several ways that ego interrupts this process. Firstly the dialogue is entered with a view of imparting ideas, the person clings to their ideas and measures the quality of the dialogue by the way in whch the ideas are imparted to the other. It is a one-way process where the ideas are intractable; is this enquiry? I noticed one such intellectual process in which a dialogue would start and then halted on one side, nothing mutual about the dialogue; this was very frustrating and to this day I can see only limited value to this process. Fear can prevent this genuine enquiry through dialogue, a fear of losing the ideas that are being clung to, an intellectual fear. With insight such a fear does not exist because the ideas are not important, not being clung to, the enquiry and insight are all that matter.
In our society a significant group of ideas are our belief systems, and clinging to our belief systems as religion is a major cause of contention. Religious discussions become heated because one belief is considered superior to another and some are prepared to fight wars accordingly. It is necessary to move beyond the ideas of the belief system through genuine enquiry into the real understanding that is at the esotoric core of all religions but few of the religious establishment are willing to do that. Nor do they encourage their practitioners to do the same, so a religion becomes a belief system that is entrenched and a cause of violence. It is amazing to see in history religion being used as an excuse for war when at the core of all religions is peace, such practices are a clear demonstration of the dangers of clinging to ideas.
Belief systems occur around religions as well. On the alternative scene people are asked to have faith in all kinds of things – angels, elves, tree spirits and many such. There is belief in ghosts, after-life and so on with all kinds of consequences that come from clinging to such ideas. If you have experienced such then it is real, if there is no such experience then it is not. Theosophy is one such example. Madame Blavatsky, through automatic writing, wrote much in The Secret Doctrine, Leadbetter says that he sees chakras and we should have faith in his sight. Why? Why should we believe any of that? More importantly what is the point in studying such? It is just a bunch of ideas, they may be true for Madame Blavatsky and Leadbetter but does that make them true for others? I strongly recommend anyone to come to terms with their own experience of chakras, that experience has been beneficial for me. But it is up to you, your insight your experience.
Idea systems occur in other ways. In the 4 Agreements we are encouraged to recognise that our education is but a dream, a set of ideas that our upbringings encourage us to fall in line with – agree with. This dream includes mores, customs, delusions, beliefs, idea systems etc. Our education, instead of equipping us with insight, fills us with ideas and an acceptance of the status quo. In one way this is useful as mutually accepting ideas and status quo can produce stability. But on the other hand if we accept a system that is harmful to others then that is dangerous. Our education has been hijacked so that the status quo that we are taught to accept is in fact the corporate paradigm, in other words we are taught to accept that we will be wage-slaves in order to increase the phenomenal wealth of a few individuals. Further in accepting the paradigm we ultimately accept that wars will be fought in order to help increase the wealth of those individuals. By accepting the dream we agree to war. Through enquiry we can learn to see what that dream is and reject it.
But here is an important rub. What happens to those people who begin to reject the dream? Where do they go? They run to alternative belief systems, and replace the dream they have from their upbringing with another dream. This new dream, one such description might be rejecting the corporate paradigm, might well be a more accurate description of what is happening, but it is so important for such people to see that they are replacing one dream with another, one set of ideas with another, one belief system with another. And one worse characteristic of such replacements is vehemence. The Trots replace their indoctrinated acceptance of capitalism with vehement diatribes about socialism. You must, you must, you must. Others who have rejected the system’s dream replace it with other idea systems and then say “you must, you must, you must”. I have a you must “Insight and Enquiry through Meditation”. To me it feels imperative that people replace their dream with these three yet by insisting on them I am also creating idea systems so from me there is no “you must”. There is a dream we grow up with, there are alternative dreams that we can accept but what if there was a state of being in which there is constant enquiry, not clinging to any ideas? What if through meditation or otherwise we could develop minds in which continuous insight was a way of perceiving all the idea systems that we come in contact with?
Clinging to ideas is what an intellectual does. People who believe in belief systems do the same, some of those belief systems are religions. But it is the intellectual adherence to a set of ideas that is common throughout. All of this on intellect, religion and belief systems I have tagged as “intellectual”, yet this intellect is part of clinging and this clinging starts to disappear if we start to understand anatta.
Here is an image. There is an inner world and an outer world, at the boundary between the inner and outer are sets of ideas. We cling to this surface of ideas because we are afraid to make the journey inner. It is comfortable to do what we are told, to live our lives as others do, to conform, to live on the surface. But that comfort has been rocked because accepting the way things are means accepting war and hurting others. An inner journey will hopefully put an end to such acceptance; all of this is summarised in tags – anatta, intellectual and coorporatocracy. Anatta – inner, intellectual – surface, corporatocracy – outer.
Tags: Corporatocracy, division, history, intellect, Occupy
Warning – Alex Jones is a problem.
I dont like promoting Alex Jones films because of the hidden messages they contain – discussed below. But I do think this movie is worth considering:-
I downloaded it from here.
When you watch this movie it is definitely worth considering the level of control being exerted by the “robber barons”. The advantage that Alex Jones has is that he is financially well hung – strong right-wing sponsorship. This enables a level of research people on the left cannot afford. That is the advantage of this movie he has the money to trace back and make the connections of the powers-that-be – I made some of the connections here.
But you do need to consider what is the purpose of this right-wing sponsorship. Alex Jones promotes individualism and this is a type of Republican message that is so dangerous. We do need individualism, we need the individualism that questions, that thinks for itself. Having worked on the left there is no doubt that these people (lefties) are individualists because you don’t join the Left unless you question the establishment. But what is the major problem on the left? Division. Individuals who do not accept collective discipline for the greater good – the collective. The Occupy movement recognised these problems and altered their democracy to reflect this – see my discussions on Occupy starting here, many blogentries. Throughout the Alex Jones movie there are derogatory references to the collective. Why? The collective is us, the people. There is a strong attack on collective as if joining together is not the correct way forward as if collectivism is a tool of the establishment. We are together already but the problem is that our power has been taken away from us by mind control and other misuses of power by the financial elite – robber barons. It is only when that natural collective functions in the interest of all the people that we have a solution to our problems.
Who are these robber barons? These are individuals who put their own interests first. This is the anomaly throughout the libertarian position. By promoting individuality first you promote the same interests that leads to the elite exploitation. They want freedom, these Right-Wing sponsors want to use that freedom to exploit the rest of humanity through mind control. That misuse of freedom has to be controlled whilst at the same time freedom for all needs to be promoted, this type of paradox is at the heart of democracy and is the fundamental flaw of these Republican libertarians.
The other fallacy that libertarians promote is the Founding Fathers. Throughout this movie there is the historical perspective that the root of all the financial exploitation lies in Europe, and of course it does. But then there is somehow an implication that this financial root has managed to somehow divert the wonderful American Founding Fathers. This is such a crock. Throughout history the exploiting class have developed constitutions, used academic literature, promoted ideals – basically appropriated any human virtue in order to exploit. The American constitution sounds great, but like everything else that is “virtuous” there was never any intention for that constitution to be put into practice. In the same way that Europe’s virtues were used to make wage-slaves of the European population, the constitution of these Founding Fathers was used to enslave the American peoples. There was never a wonderful society (cowboys?) in which American people helped each other, worked for each other, and showed compassion based on the virtues of the constitution. The constitution is simply the tool it was intended to be, the image of virtue that enslaved the American people. Alex Jones Republican masters misuse his own idealism for that constitution in a way that divides ordinary people fighting for their rights.
Libertarians demand freedom – whatever the consequences. Libertarians don’t provide protection for ordinary people, it is a bully’s charter – free to do what you want if you are powerful enough. So when you listen to Alex Jones, try to remember this. Whilst his analysis of what is wrong with society is sound – based on much financial support, his solution is just more of the same – a charter for individuals to exploit.
The foundation of any political action needs to be compassion.