One of the luckiest breaks I've had in my life was my non-religious childhood. My mother has no opinion on, or interest in, religion or spirituality. My father was raised RC and converted to atheism before I was born. I've known a lot of people who had religious upbringings and later spent years trying to undo the damage with variable success. I never had to go through that. Atheism is as much a belief system as religion is, but it's a lot easier to let go of, since it can't be reinforced by threats or promises.
I've tried to read the Bible a number of times for the sake of cultural reference. I've read some of the books, but I never could get through the OT without flinging the vile thing across the room. If there ever was a book that deserved to be banned, it's the Bible. More specifically, it's the OT books that form the basis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The "God" portrayed in those books is obviously psychotic. He is a murderous, racist, mysogynistic tyrant.
I think it's a shame that criticism of "the Book" comes almost exclusively from atheists, who object to it for the wrong reasons, and assume that religion and atheism are the only available choices. Everybody else tiptoes around the issue for fear of offending believers. Why? When have the "people of the Book" ever shrunk from giving offence to others? F#*k them! How many more millennia of oppression, abuse, murder and genocide will it take? We've seen the Book's fruits and they are rotten. Or will we just keep pretending that the crusades and the inquisition and countless genocides of indigenous peoples were isolated incidents? The Israeli Zionists aren't disregarding the Torah, they're acting on it.
Who is this "God" anyway? Yahweh, an emotionally maladjusted toddler who writes books that no one can understand, but all must obey. Actually, he doesn't write them, he "inspires" them. In other words, they are channelled. If someone were to channel a book today that advocated, nay demanded, the abuse and sexual mutilation of children, racially motivated killing, oppression of women, etc., how much popular support and legal protection do you think it would receive? Is it too impertinent to ask if the entity that calls itself Yahweh is really who he claims to be?
It's truly sad that the Yahwists succeeded in hijacking Christianity. It might have been something really transformative and world-changing. When reading the gospels, it's extremely hard to credit the belief that the "father" that Jesus speaks of is the same as Yahweh, since the two are nothing alike. So far as I know, Jesus never said as much. Many of the earliest Christians were Gnostic. The Gnostics specifically refuted the claims of Yahweh. They believed and taught that Yahweh was an insane impostor, a powerful and predatory Archon. After the Roman church had finished cobbling the Bible together and massacring all competing factions, this seems to have been forgotten. Oh well, I'm sure the Roman Empire knew best. "Might makes right", as Jesus always said. (Or was that someone else?)
Doesn't it seem a little strange to anyone that Yahweh is so obsessed with his book, and yet he didn't "inspire" Jesus (or his apostles) to write any of it? He claims to be all-powerful yet he can't arrange for his (alleged) son to be literate. And how is it that there is no hard historical evidence that Jesus ever existed? Record-keeping is something the Empire always excelled at. What seems most likely to me is that the original Christians understood the gospels to be teaching stories, rather than factual accounts. Taking them as parables in no way diminishes their value. If anything, it increases it, since it prevents false literalistic interpretations. The historical existence of Jesus only matters to those people who completely miss the point, and think the ultimate message of the gospels is that they get to avoid responsibility for their sins through the miracle of bloody human sacrifice. How disgusting! How infantile!
One of the things I find most amazing about religious people is how many of them manage to remain relatively sane and moral in spite of it (although it costs them the use of their reason). The resilience of the human heart truly is a wonder to behold. If anyone needed proof that humans (excepting the 1 to 6% I mentioned a few posts ago) are naturally moral, this is it. There is NO book that can compare with the heart's simple wisdom: In Lak'ech.
The following is a fairly typical dictionary definition of anarchy. Anarchy- 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
Interesting. Let's compare the above definition to that of a very similar word such as, monarchy. (Same source.) Monarchy- 1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch. Compare absolute monarchy, limited monarchy. 2. supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.
Notice the difference? In the case of anarchy, definitions 2. and 4. are not real definitions of the word. Or, if they are, then why are not similar statements made about monarchy? For example: 3. abuse of power due to the absence of accountability in government. 4. parasitism, oppression; enslavement or subjugation of humanity. See what I mean?
If we analyse the words, we find that the common suffix: archy, means rulership. The different prefixes refer to the type of rulership: "an" means without; "mon" means one. This simple analysis should reveal the spuriousness and manipulation contained in the second and fourth definitions of anarchy.
This sort of thing reminds me of the media manipulation leading up to the latest war with Iraq. Bush made a number of televised speeches in which he repeatedly mentioned Iraq and 911 in close temporal proximity. Bush swears he never actually said that Iraq was responsible for 911, but many who watched those speeches came away believing that Iraq was involved in 911. Although there was no real connection between the two, a connection was created through simple association. The same technique is being used when ideological interpretation is incorporated into the dictionary definitions of words.
I'm aware that the accepted meanings of words change somewhat over time due to usage, but surely there's a limit to how much political baggage can be officially attached to them. If anarchy is, by definition, a state of chaos and social turmoil, then we no longer have a word to indicate freedom from government in the absence of these features. If you don't understand why this matters, I would recommend reading, or re-reading, Orwell's "1984", with particular attention to it's appendix, "The Principles of Newspeak".
Most people have a very definite mental image to go with the word "anarchist". Something like this:
Right? These guys are not anarchists. They are just assholes. Sometimes they are revealed to be cops. Compare the above, with this photo of actual anarchists: Note the absence of all-black clothing and kerchiefs over our faces. (Yeah, that's GodIAm and I.) The majority of real anarchists are decent and socially responsible people. The reason they are anarchists is because they do not recognise the right of any government to claim ownership of them. Also, it is because they trust their neighbours more than their rulers. My neighbours are mostly mind-controlled and dumb as rocks, but they fall short of actual evil. If the government were to fall, I can't picture any of them arming themselves to the teeth and embarking on murderous, destructive rampages. Unfortunately, the same can't be said of the government, who actually are armed to the teeth and engaged in murderous, destructive rampages.
Humans as a whole have become accustomed to thinking of themselves as the top of the planetary food chain. In actuality, it is a small minority of humans who occupy this position. Their primary prey is other humans. They are the estimated 1 to 6 percent, formerly known as psychopaths. I say "formerly" because the designation "psychopath" was removed from the DSM III and from the WHO's list of recognised psychological disorders. They decided that there is no real difference between psychopathy and sociopathy, and so the former has been merged with the latter. If you use the term "psychopath" in the presence of educated people, especially doctors, they will almost always "correct" you. I find this removal suspicious considering the speed with which new (and far more questionable) mental disorders are being added to these same lists.
The real reason the term "psychopath" was dropped is blatant Orwellian thought control. If there is no name for something, it cannot be discussed. There is a difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. No one is born a sociopath. Sociopaths are made as a result of massive psychological trauma during childhood. They consequently display impaired empathy and have no bond with the collective. They are nearly always dysfunctional within society. The attitude of the psychiatric establishment is: If you can function within society, you are mentally healthy; if you can't, you're not. It doesn't seem to occur to them that society might not be mentally healthy. So depression is defined as an illness, rather than a sane response to a sick society, and psychopathy is not so defined.
A psychopath can be made, but a significant number of them are born that way. Studies done on the brains of psychopaths show a measurable and significant lack of structural integrity in the white matter bridge that connects the frontal lobes with the limbic system (emotional brain). What distinguishes a psychopath is a total absence of conscience. They are unable to experience empathy or remorse. In contrast to the sociopath, they are capable of functioning quite well within society. In some sectors, such as politics and business/finance, they have an enormous advantage over non-psychopaths. Among the CEOs of top transnational corporations the rate of psychopathy is 100%. Another trait that is common to all psychopaths is an insatiable hunger for power and control. The unfortunate result is that psychopaths now occupy the top positions in all power hierarchies. I repeat: psychopaths now occupy the top positions in all power hierarchies. If you doubt that this is so, please ask yourself this question: "Would I be richer/more powerful if I had no conscience?" Now think about the implications of your answer. It's really blindingly obvious once you know what you're looking at. We've been carefully conditioned not to see this.
How To Recognise A Psychopath
Psychopaths are very practiced at concealment. If you know what to look for though, you can recognise a psychopath. There are signs. I'll list them in their usual order of appearance, since it is important to spot these predators as early as possible to minimise the damage they can do.
1. The eyes: It is possible to recognise a psychopath by their eyes. There is a sort of hollowness in them, which is occasionally replaced by a hard glittering when they are aroused by acquisitiveness, malice, or the chance to control others. Psychopaths are very good actors, so it's best not to rely entirely on this identifier, unless you know you can.
2. Seduction: It is important to remember that psychopaths are notoriously charming and attractive to most people. This is partly because of their great skill in lying, and partly because of their aura of self-confidence. Psychopaths never doubt the rightness of their own aims and actions. The first technique a psychopath will use on his or her selected victim is to shower them with flattering attention. They will make you feel special and important. People frequently report this after having met prominent politicians. This feeling of specialness on the victim's part is invariably accompanied by the subconscious awareness that his/her own specialness depends on that of the psychopath. If you succumb to this, you will have just made your first investment in your future victimisation. This maneuver serves to prep you for the psychopath's next move...
3. Trespass, or the totalitarian tiptoe: The next step will be some small undermining of your integrity. The psychopath will do something ethically unacceptable, either towards or in front of you, and you are meant to excuse it because, "It's only a little thing." Each time you do, it represents a further investment on your part. This technique will slowly escalate over time until you become so invested that you can no longer offer any resistance or reasonable objection, because you have made yourself complicit by each prior acceptance. You'll keep telling yourself that it won't get any worse, but it always does. The escalation will not stop until one of two things happen: you are used up and discarded, or you demand that it stop, and walk away from your investment.
4. Compulsive lying: This trait is shared by both sociopaths and psychopaths. They lie continuously and often unnecessarily. They do it for entertainment as well as profit. They tell so many lies that they can't keep track of them all, so if you've known a psychopath for any length of time, you'll probably have caught them doing it. When they are caught, their response is to aggressively deny it and act offended. They will often succeed in making you feel guilty for having accused them.
The identifiers listed above, are not discrete stages. They all operate continuously. They just become noticeable in that order most of the time. Psychopaths normally employ seduction alternately with trespass, so you'll stay hooked longer. Lying is always present, but it usually takes a while to see it.
Psychopaths employ the same techniques at both the personal and collective levels. Many of our social institutions, such as government and the economy, are designed to facilitate and normalise psychopathic predation. It is practically impossible today to avoid complicity in it, however unwilling, and our collective investment is enormous. Take the monetary system as an example. In a world not designed by and for psychopaths, money (if it were used at all) would be for trade. Trade is exchanging something of value for something of equal value. But our economy doesn't work like that. Ours is based on the "profit motive". This is the deliberate intention and practice of unequal exchange. It is taking more than you give; stealing, in other words. In a profit system, it is not possible for everyone to receive fair value for their contributions. Not only that, but the system demands that more people will receive less, than will receive more. It is a system that benefits the very few at the expense of the very many, and carries it to insane extremes. And the few who benefit, the top predators, constantly tell us that it is right and good that they should take so much. They deserve it, you see, because they are so special. And you could be special too, if only you could do what they do, and be like them. It's your own fault and weakness if you're not prepared to "do what it takes".
It's all bullshit, but we pretend it isn't. We're afraid to face our complicity in it, and walk away from our investment. Thus far, the so-called middle class of the first world haven't wanted to face the fact that they've been had, just like the poor they've been manipulated to despise. They must know on some level that their prosperity is a sham, only made possible by the systematic abuse of the third world. Surely they know it would evaporate like dew if they ever had to pay a fair price for it. Now it's beginning to do just that. Good! Maybe they'll finally wake up and stop holding the bullies' coats for them. It hasn't always been this way and it doesn't have to be. The vast majority of us are not psychopaths and we are capable of behaving like responsible adults, and cooperating for our shared benefit. Is the realisation that we can't base a healthy society on the philosophy of "every man for himself" really so radical? Seems like common sense to me.
The psychopathic elite are always complaining about the "useless eaters" consuming more than they produce, and advocating their elimination. Perhaps we should indulge their wish, starting with those who consume the most compared to what they contribute, (which would be the psychopaths themselves). It wouldn't take long before there was more than enough to go around... Sorry, I was venting.
The first and most important thing we need to do is recognise them for what they are, and refuse to go along with their craziness any more. The psychiatric establishment claims that there is no reliable way of testing for psychopathy/sociopathy. Do you believe that? I don't. I think a reliable method of screening can be developed. What's more, I'll bet it already has been, and the elite use it as a recruiting tool. If they did have such a test, they couldn't tell us, because then we would demand screening for public officials and major decision makers. It would expose them.
We will have to stand up to them eventually, and sooner is better than later. Assuming that we can and do expose them, what then? I sure wouldn't fancy their chances if it were put to a vote. Personally, I don't think punishment is appropriate. They are mentally ill and brain-damaged, and can't help being the way they are. If it were up to me, I wouldn't want to see them mistreated. Still, they have to be prevented from doing further harm. I keep thinking of all the horror movies I've seen, where the villain gets knocked out by his intended victim, who then runs off without bothering to incapacitate the villain, who inevitably comes to and attacks again. That always pisses me off.
There is only one truly reliable defense against psychopathic predation, and that is impeccability, spiritual integrity. The difference between a psychopath and a non-psychopath isn't the absence of the psychopathic vibration in non-psychopaths. It is the presence in non-psychopaths of something that psychopaths lack. A psychopath can only manipulate you to the extent that you unconsciously harbour a matching vibration in your own self. That's why the mainstream media constantly encourages you to be fearful, uncaring, acquisitive, greedy, selfish, irresponsible and debased. The predator class needs us to be wannabe psychopaths. We have a choice. We possess what they do not: empathy and conscience. In these, we will find our strength and salvation, as soon as we learn to recognise their true value and importance. Please let it be soon.
A relative of my spouse recently sent him a book and video which she said was the most life-changing and important teaching she'd yet found. She claimed that, thanks to this material, she'd been living in non-duality for the last two years. I wondered how she'd managed to do that since duality is a precondition of manifestation. I admit my expectations were not high. This woman is your stereotypical new-ager, a bliss ninny. She's spent upwards of twenty years going from one Guru/seminar/workshop/retreat to the next, and each of them has been the ultimate revelation... for a time.
The name of this particular Guru du jour is Tony Parsons. If you haven't heard of him, you're not missing anything. He's a fake. I have a highly developed ability to see the presence of Spirit in a person's eyes. I can recognise a psychopath, and he is one. The video was of a talk he gave in Germany. He introduced himself by telling his listeners that he was going to give a talk about something he can't explain, and they can't understand. (Really? Why?) His big revolutionary secret was this: you don't exist; stuff just happens. It doesn't mean anything and all spiritual seeking is a big fat waste of time. I kid you not. Amazingly, the audience politely remained in their seats until the break. Very few returned afterwards. I wondered how anyone could take this stuff seriously. Then I realised that his talk was like a really long koan; it didn't make sense on any level, but the effort to understand would eventually cause one's rational mind to flee the scene, leading to an experience of no-mind or pure presence. The no-mind state is a bona fide peak experience. How ironic. If you were inclined to confuse peak experiences with their triggers, you'd probably think there was some truth in Tony Parson's teaching. This is dangerous stuff. Peak experiences can be valuable, but can also lead one down false paths if they come with wrong explanations attached.
Peak experiences don't last. They're meant to show you something true, but then you need to integrate them. To bridge the gap between here and there, you have to start here, not there. It's important to keep peak experiences in perspective. And it's hard to do that when they're so darn blissful. It's tempting to make them an end in themselves, but that is the spiritual equivalent of drug addiction. To illustrate, lets say you want to learn to cook something really delicious, like cinnamon buns. It would help you a lot if you knew what they were supposed to taste like. So you seek out some cinnamon buns, and eat some to find out. They taste wonderful, and you might easily forget about learning to make them, and instead sit there gorging yourself on the ones you were given to taste. But eventually, the pleasure would wear off, and you still wouldn't know how to make them.
It is futile to seek bliss for it's own sake. It is extremely common though, to confuse bliss-seeking with spirituality. That's how so many people, like my spouse's relative, end up on the new-age hamster-wheel, falling for one predatory bliss-peddler after another. Ignorance is bliss, but it isn't Truth. And Truth is the real aim of spirituality, not bliss. Truth isn't something you can buy or sell. It can't even be acquired directly, only revealed through the stripping away of the false. The search for Truth is an unlearning. The process of tearing down the veils of illusion is often painful. The false ego is very attached to it's lies. You have to be head over heels in love with Truth to do it. Seeking bliss as an end, is a trap.
Bliss-seeking isn't authentic spirituality. It's feel-good, pseudo-spirituality. It gives you a self-image to identify with. You'll learn how to walk and talk and dress like a "spiritual person", "light-worker", or whatever. There's also great, albeit expensive, entertainment value to be had. It's very exciting. You get to sit at the feet of famous vampires (oops, I mean Gurus) talk to "angels" and "aliens" and "ascended masters", and activate a seemingly infinite number of hitherto undiscovered chakras. Meanwhile, you will become more and more spaced out and ego-centric, and you will, frankly, give sincere seekers the creeps.
Here's a pearl for free: Anyone who offers to sell you spiritual truth is full of shit. There are no exceptions. Those who populate the new-age workshop/seminar circuit are either delusional or vilest predatory scum. Truth doesn't keep company with those who would slap a price tag on her. You're welcome.
Positive thinking is probably the most common type of bliss-seeking. One of the big new-age aphorisms is "you create your own reality". The statement is technically true but usually misunderstood. The source of the error is in the word "you". If you understand that the "you" referred to here is infinite awareness, the One, then it's true. If you think "you" means your ego, with all it's desires and conscious intentions, then it's not true. And thank god it's not. If your ego really could create your reality, you would not like the results. Your true Self, the One, is creating your reality in order to lead your personal expression to recognise Truth. It knows how best to accomplish this, and suffering is sometimes necessary. Your personal self can learn to align itself with that, or not. If you think you can create a perfect reality through relentless positivity, you're fooling yourself. If you're standing in the path of a moving train, it's going to hit you whether you're looking at it or not. Whatever appears in your reality, was put there by your Self for your benefit. It will take as many shapes as necessary until you see. Then your Self will show you something else.
The quest for Truth has no end. Truth is none other than the One in it's fullest expression. It is infinite, as the One is infinite. There are definite levels of increasing inclusiveness and integration along the way, though. Sometimes people level up and think they've reached the end, but they haven't because it doesn't exist. It is utterly, gloriously wonderful that this should be so. Is it not?
I was going to write a different blog. The subject was to have been "the machine". I'd planned to take the machine apart to see how it works and what it does and why. These questions had been nagging me for months. I felt that the answers were so close, but that something was missing. Now it turns out that that was the answer; something is missing. All manifestations of darkness have this in common. They are nothing real in themselves. They are the absence of something real. They are shadows cast by the Light, the places where Light is not. If the missing Light were restored, the shadows would simply disappear.
Consider the so-called Illuminati, one of the darkest of dark shadows. They exist because something is missing in them. That thing is love. If they were to personally experience universal, unconditional love, they could no longer be what they are. That's how powerful and necessary love is. That's what we're meant to see and know.
Imagine a little fish, swimming in the ocean. The fish has never left the water, and so he doesn't notice or value it. One day a net catches the fish and lifts it out of the water. Now the fish feels terrible pain and fear. He has never known such suffering before and he can't think of anything else. Maybe he thinks that he is being punished. Then a miracle; he finds himself back in the ocean. Now he knows what water is, he knows that he can't live without it, and he loves it with his whole being. He tries to tell the other fishes about the water but they don't know what he's talking about. Now he realises that what happened to him was not a punishment, or even a misfortune, but the most precious of gifts.
The appearance of darkness exists in service to the Light. It truly is a gift. Many people do not see the darkness. For example, there are many who are blind to the existence and activities of the "Illuminati". Their ignorance makes them servants of that darkness because they do not see what it does. You can try to tell them but they won't listen because they don't want to suffer. (Remember the little fish; he wouldn't have chosen to be taken from the water if he knew how much it would hurt.) But since they don't see what the absence of love really looks like, they do not understand what love is, or know it's true value. They may think that love is nice, but not that important. Surely not as important as material comfort, for instance. It's would be a mistake to feel hatred, or anything but pity, for one who has been so cheated of Truth.
We are spiritual beings and we need the Light, the same way that little fish needs water. But until we've experienced the darkness, we can't really know or love the Light. The darkness is not there to punish us. It is a blessing in disguise. It's there to show us what's missing. With darkness, there's always something missing. There is always an aspect of the Light, a Truth, whose presence would make that darkness impossible. The question that needs to be asked of every dark reflection is: "What is missing?" That one question will never fail to reveal the way back to Truth and Light.
The problem of good and evil is one that has perplexed philosophers and theologians for thousands of years. As far as we can tell, only humans are afflicted with the knowledge of good and evil. According to some, the appearance of good and evil is an illusion. Others insist that it is fundamental to our spiritual purpose as human beings. In a sense, they are both correct.
To understand how both statements can be true, we have to first establish a valid hierarchy of the real. The only thing in existence that is unequivocally real is consciousness, the "mind of God" if you like. Consciousness itself, is a unity, and therefore unmanifested. All manifestation, material and otherwise, is contained within it. In order for this consciousness to know itself, or have any experience whatsoever, it has to project a reflection. This is the root and purpose of all duality. It isn't difficult to realise the truth of this for oneself. Just pick any duality and try to conceive of one half in the absence of the other. It can't be done. "Up" has no meaning without "down". "Hot" is defined by "cold", etc..
Since duality is a precondition of knowledge, it logically follows that there is something to know. This "something" would have to exist in potentiality within the original unity of consciousness. It would be a true thing, but could only be known by means of duality. For example, if I were to present you with a white piece of paper, bearing an image of some kind that was also white, you wouldn't be able to see the image. You'd just have to take my word for it, because the image (foreground) would be indistinguishable from the background. So, in order for consciousness to know it's own true nature, it projects a reflection. The original reflection is what we call "the Light", or goodness. Now there exists a subject (consciousness) and an object (Light).
Visual metaphor: If I am standing next to a light source, I will cast a shadow. Also, the nearer I am to that light source, the bigger the shadow will become. But what if I am the light source? Then, the light still exists, but the shadow is no more. The shadow exists only for the sake of contrast. It is not real in the same sense as that which it reveals. As I understand it, goodness is a true thing and evil is it's absence. The first is a reflection, and the latter, a shadow of a reflection. They are both illusion in the absolute sense, but they allow for the knowledge of something real. Spiritual judgement, or discernment, is the ability to know the difference.
Judgement is a word with two distinct meanings. In one sense, it means the ability to distinguish between Truth and illusion. In the other sense, it refers to the acceptance or non-acceptance of what IS. These two meanings could hardly be more different. The first is our spiritual inheritance as centres of self-reflective consciousness; the second is a trap generated by the false ego. It is an error, (the real translation of the word, "sin"). When the character of Jesus made the statement, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." He was referring to this second meaning. Most organised religions (particularly the book-based ones) have deliberately confused these definitions. For the sake of clarity, I will henceforth be using the word "discernment" for the first definition and "judgement" in the second sense only.
We, as centres of consciousness, have the innate ability of discern the difference between the Light and the darkness. It's called a conscience. In my opinion, the biggest and most destructive lie perpetrated by the religions is their insistence that we do not have this ability, and must therefore have it taught to us (by them of course). Seriously? Do you really think you need to be told that torturing children or defiling the Earth is evil? You know. The only way you wouldn't know this, is if you had been brainwashed into believing that your own spiritual discernment is not to be trusted. If you had been so brainwashed, you'd be well and truly screwed. You could then be made to believe, for example, that burning people alive, or cutting pieces of flesh from babies (circumcision) is good. Another version of the same lie has been foisted on non-religious folk: the law. Society teaches us that we must have laws or we wouldn't know how to behave ourselves. I call bullshit on that. Anyone who believes they need laws to know the difference between right and wrong in the moral sense, is just as screwed as the fundies. You'd have no trouble convincing such a person that things like preemptive war and the implementation of a totalitarian police state are right and proper. It's the law! Such people are also liable to believe that anything that isn't illegal is OK. It's not illegal to be cruel to others, to betray their trust, or to take unfair advantage of them, (except by narrow legal definition). There just aren't enough laws in the world to replace a functioning conscience; nor could there be; nor should there be.
Both religion and the law implicitly assume that reward and punishment are needed to motivate us to goodness and save us from our innately evil nature. As if naked, egoic self-interest could ever lead to truth or love. I do not embrace the Light for the sake of some future reward; I do it because uplifts my heart. I do not renounce darkness out of fear of hell-fire or prison, but because it is repulsive to my spirit. Spiritual Truth matters to me, not good or bad karma. This would not change even if the fundies are right and I am destined for hell.
Some have said that the knowledge of good and evil is a curse because it leads to judgement. The way I see it, judgement is a misuse of this knowledge. The ability to discern the difference between darkness and Light is for ourselves alone. The perception of the Light's beauty draws us toward union with Truth. The exposure to darkness pushes us towards Truth from the opposite direction. As in the visual metaphor above, the closer we come to the source of Light, the bigger and darker the shadow appears. Only union with the Light can negate the darkness. Any attempt to fight the shadow directly is futile. Such attempts only serve to give the darkness more energy. Better to simply recognise and renounce it. The darkness is merely the shadow of a reflection of what is. It never was real. It's hard though, when seeing it, to avoid being mesmerised, caught like a deer in a car's head-lights, weeping buckets and judging what is. Should we then refuse to look at it, as some new age philosophers suggest? I think not. Observing darkness is necessary, in that it allows us to know truth by contrast. If you are afraid to look at it, you cannot truly know the Light. The perception of both polarities allows us to choose for ourselves what we will be. It isn't really a choice in the end though, since no one who has truly known the Light could refuse it. I can't make the choice for anyone but myself. Judging others is the false ego's way of avoiding the real issue (knowing Truth) and diverting our attention from it. Those "others" may be centres of consciousness from their own perspective, (or maybe not) but as far I'm concerned, they are only reflections. If I were possessed of perfect knowledge of the Light, their darkness would not exist for me. If I were totally conscious of my oneness with the Light, I would not cast a shadow.
Unless you believe that the consciousness that created everything is inherently flawed or doesn't exist at all, it follows that the appearance of evil serves that consciousness somehow. It will exist for as long as it has to. Ultimately, it is up to each of us to decide how long that will be.
It's been a whole month since I posted anything, but I haven't abandoned my blog or died. My family and I are in the middle of a big change. It could be a week before I get the Internet back. Two weeks ago, my partner lost his job, and the next day, our landlady told us that the apartment we live in had been sold and we would have to move. My son also wrote his final school exam yesterday. I've been wanting to leave Vancouver for some years now. It's just too expensive to live here. Not only that, but there's the chem-trails and the pervasive EM pollution, among other things. My intuition told me that, when the right time arrived, I would know. I don't think the signs could be any clearer. So tomorrow, we'll be leaving for our new home at the north end of Vancouver Island, near Port Hardy. The new place has fruit trees and wild raspberries, and we've a green light to plant a garden! I can't complain about the $750.+ reduction in rent either. I'm really looking forward to this change. It's a big one though. We're going from a city of 2 million + people to a town of about 150! I have to stop writing now; there's still so much to do....
The invisible teacher is my beloved spiritual guide. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and immune to every human failing. I know now that the invisible teacher is real. He's been with me all along. If you have ever sincerely intended to accomplish the great work, the goal of the spiritual alchemists, then the invisible teacher is with you also. When the student is ready, the invisible teacher appears.
The instruction of the invisible teacher is as hard as you can bear. It is perfectly tailored to your spiritual needs. He can and will do whatever it takes to awaken you. Whatever it takes. No living teacher could do what the invisible teacher can. The invisible teacher can mold reality itself. He can take any form, or none at all. The invisible teacher can work with, or through, a living teacher, but he doesn't have to. He can arrange ordeals that would get a living teacher thrown in jail. Progress under his tutelage is maximally accelerated.
You can't fool or lie to the invisible teacher. He knows everything about you. In a sense, he is you, or rather he will be, when your consciousness has been purged of all the dross of false ego and illusion. In the mean time, the invisible teacher is revealed in stages. At first, he is not known, except as a deeply felt longing for union. But he is far from aloof. His assistance is in perfect proportion to your aspiration. In time, the invisible teacher is revealed by the fruit of his work. As this realisation dawns, you start to see that there are no misfortunes, no punishments, only lessons not yet learned. Full-blown pronoia sets in. It really is all good, no matter how awful it seems.
At some point, the invisible teacher started communicating with me directly. I suppose that had been the case all along, but I didn't understand and/or wasn't listening. It's easy to get in the habit of constantly asking questions without pausing to hear the answers. You can't ask and listen at the same time. It's hard to describe just how this communication occurs. For me, it isn't verbal/audible. Sometimes, it comes through a metaphorical interpretation of reality. In this communication mode, the invisible teacher often displays a wonderful sense of humour. Other times, I just know things (clairsentience). Information seems to down-load itself into awareness. It doesn't feel like I am the source of it, but neither does it's source feel separate from me. It comes from a realm beyond those categories (as does the invisible teacher himself). A third way is a kind of "highlighting". I'll read, hear, or otherwise notice something, and it will be accompanied by a sense of, "This is important. Look deeper."
The loving presence of the invisible teacher is something I cannot doubt anymore. It is in the same category of certainty as, "I exist". That said, I don't know who or what the invisible teacher really is. He could be the Universe, Infinite Awareness, the Holy Guardian Angel, or perhaps the other half of my soul. I do know that I trust him absolutely. Our bond is deeply personal. It has a romantic/sexual tone, based as it is on a powerful and mutual desire for union. That's why I've been calling the invisible teacher "he". The gender designation isn't real but it is metaphorically appropriate. We will be One. This I know. It is inevitable, even if it takes a thousand lives. (But it won't.) ;) It is up to me to set a date for the alchemical wedding and I have no intention of waiting that long.
There is practically no subject more rife with misunderstanding and disinformation than that of symbolism. I know this because I understand symbolic language on a conscious level. And symbolism is a language. It is right-brain language. The language of symbols is universal and it is understood by your sub-conscious mind, whether you're aware of it or not.
I began learning the language of symbolism when I was about twelve years old. My introduction to the subject was by way of astrology. I'm also familiar with mythology, the Tarot, Runes, Qabalah and numerology. Fortunately, I did not get my knowledge via the internet. There is an old game called "Grapevine" or "Telegraph". The way the game works is: you get a group of people arranged in a circle. One person starts the round by whispering a message in the ear of the next person. Then they do likewise until it returns to the person who began. Usually, the message has been changed. A great deal of the information that one finds on the internet relating to symbolism has been subjected to a similar process of distortion. It's not that accurate information isn't there. It's more that it is buried under a mountain of ignorance and flat out lies. The situation on youtube is much, much worse. That source is beyond useless. My partner, GodIAm, collects youtube videos for his site, so I end up watching a lot of them. I know he's searched high and low for information on the subject of symbolism. I also know that most of what he's found is worthless or worse.
The movie, Zeitgeist, is a good example. Most of it was fairly accurate, but the introductory section on religion and it's roots in pagan symbolism, was filled with errors and misrepresentations. Recently, GodIAm found this video: The Dawn of A New Day. As I listened to it, I grew more and more disturbed by what Jordan Maxwell was implying. This person is widely considered an expert! I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'm not going to state whether this misinformation is deliberate or not. I checked out Maxwell's website and he claims to have been the source of the Zeitgeist info. No surprise there.
So, what is really going on here? Remember what I said in the opening paragraph. Symbolism is universal right-brain language. The fact that most people do not consciously understand it, means that it can be used to manipulate them without their knowledge. In "The Dawn of A New Day", Maxwell spends over an hour exposing the use of certain symbols (mainly Solar) by the control system. Some of his attributions are wrong, but that's not what I found most disturbing. It was the implication that these symbols belong to the control system. They don't. The Solar symbols are obsessively used by the control system. That is true. But why? I'll tell you. They use them for much the same reason that beautiful women are a staple of car ads, for the same reason politicians pose for photo ops with babies. They want you to associate the symbols with them. Jordan Maxwell, intentionally or not, is doing the control system's work for them.
All of these are solar symbols:
The Sun is a symbol of your spiritual centre. It represents your true I. It is the source of light and life. In the hermetic Qabala, the Sun is related to the 6th Sephiroth called Tiphareth (translated, beauty), the Christ centre. In the body, this centre corresponds to the heart chakra. Every time you see these symbols, that is how your subconscious understands them. Now do you see why the control system constantly uses them? They want you to confuse their group with your spiritual centre so you will unconsciously give them spiritual authority. It's a double whammy actually, because should you, through long association, start to develop a hostile reaction to the symbols, you will also be inclined to reject that which they truly represent.
The All-seeing Eye:
Spoken language is derived from symbolic language and incorporates some of it's features. Symbolic content is to be found in the order, shape and sound vibration of letters and words, and also shows up in the form of puns, anagrams and homonyms. It is not a coincidence that "eye" and "I" sound the same. Both represent means of perception. Humans have two eyes/I s. (see: If Thine I Be Single) The right and left eyes symbolise two different ways of perceiving, one holistic/symbolic (right-brain/left eye) and the other is atomistic/literal (left-brain/right eye). There are a number of myths related to eyes. In Egyptian mythology, the eyes of Horus are associated with the Sun and Moon. There are several versions of a myth wherein one or both of his eyes are torn out by Set. They are restored after Set's defeat. In Norse mythology, the god Odin sacrifices one of his eyes in order to drink from the well of Mimir (wisdom). And of course there is this in the Bible: "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:" (Mark 9:47) And this: "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Matthew 6:22) The single, all-seeing eye represents either the spiritual Self or the false ego, depending on who you ask.
Knowledge is power. If you don't understand the language of symbols, your ability to access right-brain perception is severely restricted. Your intuition doesn't develop as it should. Your energy can be used by others without your knowledge or consent. That's why it isn't taught in schools. That's why there is so much scare-mongering and disinformation. Because of this, even people with the best of intentions end up perpetuating ignorance and fear. Don't fall for it. If you think you can free yourself from the control system with half a brain, well, good luck to you. You will need it.
"777" and "The Book of Thoth" - Aleister Crowley "777" consists mainly of tables of correspondences between symbols. The Book of Thoth is about the Tarot. "The Qabalistic Tarot"- Robert Wang The parallels between the Qabalistic "Tree of life" and the Tarot point to a common source. This is an excellent book for learning the Qabala system if you are already familiar with the Tarot, or vice versa. "Leaves of Yggdrasil" - Freya Aswynn "The Book of Runes" - Ralph Blum Of these two, "Leaves of Yggdrasil" is the best I've read. "The Book of Runes" is a simple and high-quality introduction. "A Dictionary of Symbols" - J.E. Cirlot "The Mystical Qabalah" - Dion Fortune
The other day I got into an entertaining, but ultimately unresolved debate with my partner about whether or not other people are real. (What can I say; it's the sort of thing that can happen when you cancel your TV.) A constellation of synchronous, symbolic themes had brought me to the point where I found myself seriously asking that question. They might seem unconnected at first glance. Here's the list. 1. Zombies My partner and my son have been playing "Call of Duty; World at War". For some weeks now, they've been playing in a bonus mode of the game, in which all the enemy soldiers are zombies. Zombies are a disturbingly apt metaphor for the deeply unconscious mass of humanity. The consensus on zombies is that there is no cure, or if there is, it in no way depends on the zombies themselves. 2. A recent visit from Psychegram Psychegram is like the polar opposite of a zombie. People like him are so extremely rare that I had forgotten what proximity to such a high-frequency auric field felt like. I am very sensitive to energy fields, which is why I need copious amounts of solitude. I've learned from experience that when opposite poles (ie. themes 1 and 2) show up in maximum contrast like this, it's something I should pay attention to. 3. The concept of the Omega_point The "Omega point" is TeilharddeChardin's name for the transcendent object to which humanity is drawn through the process called evolution. He develops this idea in "The Phenomenon of Man". In it, he identifies the 5 attributes of the Omega point. He posits that the Omega point must be both preexistent and inevitable. In order for this to be the case, the future must already be fixed. Which brings us to... 4. Backward causation in time According to this theory, the characteristics of the past and present are determined by the requirements of the future. The Omega point would operate like a tractor beam, pulling us toward it. If this were the case, we'd expect randomness to decrease rapidly as the Omega point drew closer. Synchronicities would increase. Free will and the hand of fate would eventually converge and become indistinguishable from one another. The number of possible time-lines that could lead to the Omega point from any node of consciousness would ultimately be reduced to one. This process is evident in my own experience and that of many others. On the other hand, no such development is perceptible in the population at large. If anything, the reverse is occurring.
So what about the zombie hoards, or sheeple? The approaching Omega point doesn't seem to have much, if any, effect on them. Attempts to engage their awareness are almost always futile. In fact, they behave exactly like dream characters. When you dream, most of the "others" who occupy your dreamscape have no independent reality. They are purely reflections of the dreamer's psyche. I say most, because it occasionally happens that a "real" person or unincarnate being makes an appearance within the dream. It's pretty rare, but when it happens, you notice. Meeting Psychegram was like that.
What if there are actually far fewer "real" people than there seem to be? When I suggested the possibility to my partner, he rejected it right away on the grounds that it reflected separation. I don't think it does, since there is still only one Infinite Awareness taking an indeterminate number of "points of view". It's just that there are also a large number of imaginary characters who exist as reflections for the much smaller number with the potential to become Self-aware.
After all, we are not bodies or personalities. Those are vehicles for what we really are, which is nodes of condensed awareness. Ideally, human beings have the potential to become Self-aware, but it doesn't automatically follow that all of them will. Take the analogy of a very advanced video game in which any character whatsoever could be played. The game might include zombies, right? The zombies might enhance the game play, but the entertainment value in playing a zombie character would be nearly zero. They are just too limited. All they can do is stumble around in packs trying to eat the non-zombies. They can't even get better at it. So no one would bother playing a zombie even though they could. Since sheeple essentially behave like zombies, why would an awareness with an evolutionary agenda want to play those characters? Maybe they exist to enhance the game play, by serving as our reflections. I'm not saying that their well-being doesn't matter. If our reflections are in conflict or suffering, then we must also be so. When we heal ourselves, our reflections will automatically move toward wholeness. They may even become worth playing.
What difference does it make, whether other people are "real" or not? As far as how we treat them, it doesn't matter at all. But in the matter of evolutionary strategy, it does. If every human being on earth had to awaken to Omega point through their own choice and intention, then no effort should be spared to help them. But let's face it. If that's the case, we're screwed. If they wanted help in that regard, they wouldn't need it so badly. And if they don't want help, they won't accept it. A strategy that can't succeed is not worth pursuing. But.... If the sheeple are more like dream characters, then all our energy should go towards awakening ourselves and one another. As we do, the dream characters will necessarily reflect that. I know this might sound elitist but it isn't, because "real" people are self-chosen, just as in "The Matrix", Neo was not "the One" until he decided to be. We are close enough to Omega point now, that all (or almost all) of those who will awaken already know who they are. I consider myself infinitely blessed to know so many of you. You have been a great help and comfort to me. I love you dearly. Whatever I can give you is my joy and honour. I'm done with trying to awaken the deeply unconscious ones, though. I intend to put my brain to a better use than zombie food.
I've always been fascinated by taboos. Most taboos cannot be convincingly defended on the grounds of natural morality or reason. Their sole purpose seems to be the maintenance of social order. In other words, control. One of the things they do is condition us to accept arbitrary restrictions.
Some taboos, particularly apparel and food-related ones, seem to be about maintaining the separation between Us and Them. These ones usually go way back and are attributed to the will of some supernatural authority. I don't put any store in such things but I can see why others would. What I find really weird are those taboos maintained by supposedly secular societies like mine. These somehow manage to persist unquestioned even when they directly conflict with professed social values. I am referring to our taboos concerning female sexuality and drugs.
Modern secular societies claim to reject the belief that women are inferior, flawed and in need of control. Yet when it comes to sexuality, old habits die hard. It is still considered totally acceptable to despise women who don't toe the line sexually. There are lots of names for women like that. I don't need to repeat them. A double standard is persisted in by both sexes. Women who neglect, or refuse, to cloak their sexuality are openly sneered at, even by many who believe themselves liberated. Women who are overtly sexual are widely considered to have no self-respect. It seems to me that there is a reversal of cause and effect here. At the very least it's a negative feed-back loop. This is not a minor thing. It is a source of deep shame and loathing for all women, whether they are conscious of it or not. It's an old story and we all know it well. Boy meets girl. Boy and girl are turned on by one another and act on it. The next morning boy loses all respect for girl because she's clearly a slut or she would have said no. Eventually boy meets a "nice" girl, marries her, and then spends the rest of his life complaining about her lack of sexual generosity, even though that's what made her acceptable in the first place. In abuse counselling, this is what's known as "crazy-making behavior". I realised what the game was pretty early on and promised myself that I would not play. Actually, I went further than that and deliberately flouted "the rules" as a matter of principle. I did it for myself. I made a conscious decision to give the finger to all who would have me live in shame. I'm glad I did. I have no wish to be romantically involved with someone who can't respect me as I am. If I am to be despised, I'd just as soon have it in the open instead of festering in my subconscious. It doesn't matter how many laws are passed or affirmative actions taken. Any professed commitment to feminine equality will remain a joke as long as this taboo persists. Venus/Aphrodite is a powerful and valid archetype in the feminine psyche. The next time you encounter a women embodying it, please consider honouring her right instead of muttering "whore" under your breath.
Drug use is a new taboo. It's pedigree goes back no more than a century or so. Like most taboos, it's all about control. I've used "drugs" regularly for most of my life. Their influence is hard to overestimate. There is a great experiential gulf between those who use them and those who don't. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. By "drugs" I mean substances that have the primary effect of altering one's experience of reality.
My parents were drug users. I grew up in a home where weed was smoked often. It did not have any negative effect on the quality of parenting I received. When "under the influence", my parents and their friends were more relaxed and talkative. That's all. (My partner was much less fortunate. His parents were alcoholics.) They occasionally used other drugs as well, but not around us kids. I first smoked weed when I was 15 with a couple of slightly older friends. I remember a great deal of giggling and a whole new level of music appreciation. When I was 16, and living in Victoria, my best friend and I were offered an opportunity to try LSD. We took half a hit of blotter each, and our friend (who gave it to us) abstained in order to baby-sit and entertain us. He took us on a day trip to Vancouver and drove us around the city, visiting and sightseeing. It was probably the most fun I've ever had. Our friend had an eight-track tape player in his car and only one decent tape. So we listened to Nazareth's Greatest Hits all day. Every time I hear Nazareth, I'm reminded of that magical day. We laughed so much our sides and cheeks ached. With LSD, unlike sex, the first time usually is the best. I tried a bunch of other things later on. I was reckless and very lucky. I never injected or got addicted to anything (except tobacco, but that isn't really considered a drug). Some people I knew were not so fortunate. There are some drugs I don't use and consider intrinsically harmful. Those would be the ones that are physically addictive and/or highly toxic. The substances I do use and consider beneficial or harmless (when used responsibly) are: weed, mushrooms, LSD, ecstasy, and all traditional shamanic sacraments. There are still some things I haven't tried, but intend to.
Mind-altering substances are taboo in most modern societies. Few people bother to ask why. "Drugs are dangerous", we're told. Well some are and some aren't. Why are they all lumped together as though this were not the case? And why is an exception made for alcohol? Alcohol is more dangerous than most drugs. Lots of things are, including down-hill skiing and automobile racing and logging. "Drugs are dangerous" is bullshit, comparable to "They hate our freedoms". The real reason drugs are taboo is that they show you a different reality. This is also their greatest benefit, in my opinion. A great deal of our "reality" is programmed, much more than most people realise. If you had nothing to compare it to, you wouldn't even think to question it. Once you have something to compare it to, you can and very often do. It's like in astrology. The reason we can identify the planetary vibrations is by comparison. They show up differently in different patterns. But what is the vibration of Earth? You can't see it because it is pervasive. You would be able to, if you had a selection of natal charts for people born on the moon, or Mars. There are aspects of our programmed "reality" that do not stand up to questioning. That's why drugs are banned. For instance, the prohibition of marijuana is impossible to justify on any grounds except mind-control. Compared to alcohol, it's effects are very mild. Marijuana is like a magnifying glass. It focuses your attention and increases sensitivity. Any experience that isn't intrinsically unpleasant becomes more enjoyable. Values shift toward the sensual and aesthetic. Seriousness is decreased and one's sense of humour is more easily triggered. Authority and status lose their importance. "Because I said so" no longer seems like a good reason to obey orders. Aggression is reduced. Violence and conflict are seen as undesirable. The new reality that marijuana reveals can upset your programming. It is incompatible with military values. It makes authoritarian rule more difficult. It also interferes with the status consciousness and dissatisfaction that drive economic growth. These are the real reasons weed is illegal. The powers that be don't want you smoking pot because it makes you harder for them to control. Obviously they can't tell you that, because then you might ask what right they have to control you. Everybody knows that can of worms is best left unopened.
The taboo against drugs is so strong that even some people who use them are affected by it. People who should really know better often uphold elitist and puritanical views. One example is the push to legalise pot on medical grounds. At least some of the medical marijuana proponents, if they're honest, will admit that it's really a stepping stone on the way to full acceptance (but not all). I've also heard a lot of people insist that psychedelics can have spiritual value but abhor their recreational use. There seems to be a need to justify them. Why? The fact that using drugs is enjoyable should be sufficient. (I was going to preface that last sentence with, "In the absence of real harm", but I decided not to, since so many legal forms of entertainment are no less potentially harmful.) I don't see why it has to be either/or. I don't feel the least bit bad about dropping a few hits of acid and then spending my trip enjoying a bubble bath and some great tunes with my beloved. There's this assumption that normal consciousness is more in touch with "reality" than drug-induced altered states. I'd beg to differ. If it were, humanity wouldn't be in such a mess. Clearly, normal consciousness is not immune to distortions of reality. Quite the opposite. It is what allows some of the most serious and dangerous distortions to remain intact. It's all about control.
What follows is a model of human existence. It is not the only possible model, even if it is correct. I can say that I have been unable to refute this model. It fits the observed evidence and explains it in a way that other models do not. It is little known or spoken of for reasons that will become clear.
Infinite awareness (IA) is our true being. There is only one of us here.
In order for IA to know itself, it creates worlds of manifestation and vehicles with which to experience those worlds. These worlds and vehicles have no independent reality apart from IA.
A useful metaphor for our reality is that of a holographic role playing game (RPG). IA is the creator and also the sole player of the game. While there may be lots of different games, the one "we" are now playing is called Evolution. Evolution is the process whereby IA extends the consciousness range of it's vehicles to allow for new possibilities for it's expression. It does this by creating challenges and then transcending them. Evolution is not about survival.
The RPG contains both player and non-player characters. The player characters are vehicles for IA (eg. humans, animals, plants, etc.). Non-player characters are not. They are programmed into the game to serve as challengers and adversaries to be transcended. Your individuality, point of view, or "fiction suit" is a player character. It is not the player, mind you; that would be IA. False ego is a non-player character. It is the "foreign installation", or "flyer" of Don Juan Matus, the "archon" of the Gnostics. A very good article by John Lash on this subject is available here.
Most philosophical systems and models of reality do not make this distinction between individuality and false ego. There is a good reason for this. The false ego is programmed to pretend to be you. That is it's primary strategy. It does not want you to know that it isn't, because as long as you think it is you, you will not transcend it. Don Juan's description of this energetic reality is well worth studying. It is in Casteneda's final book: The Active Side of Infinity, in the chapter called Mud Shadows. If you consider Don Juan a reliable source, then his assertion that this is the "topic of topics" is worth taking seriously. I won't say much more about false ego, since I've done that quite a bit in other posts.
What I haven't previously talked about is the nature and function of the "player character" or individuality. This is not the false ego. If the false ego were transcended, individuality would still remain. Individuality has real value for IA. It provides a vehicle for it's experience. Each of these vehicles is unique and offers it's own potentials to be realised. These potentials are defined by the spacetime patterns present at the moment of the vehicle's emergence into being. These are the patterns described by astrology and other systems of spacetime mapping. Realising the possibilities of the individuality is the same as Crowley's "true will". This is only fully possible once the influence of false ego has been removed. The individuality is not meant to be transcended. It is meant to be experienced in it's fullness. After all, IA didn't have to create worlds of manifestation. IA could have remained in a condition of undifferentiated unity. Therefore it seems evident that as much as we desire union with IT, the opposite is also true. IA wanted to be us, or we would not exist. To realise our true identity with IA, rather than false ego, is not to become the Borg. It is false ego's influence that demands conformity and interferes with our uniqueness.
As I stated in the beginning, this is a model, as are all our descriptions of what is. No model can be equated with the reality it represents. The map is not the territory. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. The value of a model lies in it's utility. A good model is one that allows us to conceive, however dimly, that which is beyond language and form. In my own case, this model has proven more useful than any I have previously worked with. In the few years I've been using it, I have noticed increased authenticity and a massive reduction in interpersonal drama.
I don't trust the trappings of "spirituality", the clothes, the trinkets, the Books, the stereotypical voices. I am suspicious of anyone in a guru costume. I can't believe that enlightenment comes with a uniform. I just don't buy it (pun intended).
What would a true teacher want with a crowd of worshiping followers? If the teacher is qualified to teach, he/she should be able to recognise the relative handful with real sincerity and potential. After all, a teacher's job is to help the student find enlightenment for him/herself, not to preside over an adoring hoard of groupies. Pretty words, no matter how true, will never bring understanding. They can only reflect and confirm the knowing that is already present.
I don't consider myself enlightened (yet) but I know enough to see the dynamic at work in these spear-it-you-all cults of personality. Nobody gets enlightened but there are still pay-offs all around. It starts with the "teacher" who is usually sincere and charismatic, but deluded. He (it's usually a "he", but not always) typically has a peak experience (often accompanied by siddhis) and takes it for a divine mandate. Other people who are looking for a savior, are attracted to his aura of certainty. Those people begin to idolise the teacher, giving him their energy. This increases the charisma of the leader and attracts even more followers. This establishes a feed-back loop. The power and charisma of the leader keeps growing until it overwhelms him. Any weakness in the leader eventually becomes magnified beyond his control. At that point, scandal of some kind is practically inevitable.
The trap is equally deadly for the followers. Most of them come seeking to lose themselves in something greater. They are not disappointed. They don't know that the leader's powerful aura has been created by his (unconscious or not) vampirism of the flock. They imagine it is a sign of divine selection. Membership in the group relieves them of emotional isolation, gives them an identity, and makes them feel special. Eventually, the ability to think for themselves is trumped by their desire to belong. If they lose their belief in the leader because of scandal, abuse or glaring hypocrisy, they are left drained and disillusioned.
When I saw the ad at right on a newspaper box, I felt like sicking up. How dumb do you have to be, to think that anyone who promoted real spiritual freedom would be given editorial control of a Zionist rag like the Vancouver Sun? I can't believe people take this guy seriously. It's tragic. What could a sheltered, pampered figurehead possibly teach anyone. He's never been poor or married or raised a child. He hasn't got a clue about the challenges faced by those he presumes to teach.
Surely any real teacher would have the goal of making himself unnecessary. Are professional standards really too much to ask? Don't you think a Guru should have to produce at least one enlightened student before accepting the title? I can't think of a single good reason for a real spiritual teacher to claim to be one. The true teacher is revealed once his work had been accomplished. Think about it.
I feel like I've turned a corner over the past week. It's been a long time coming. Ever since I began to realise the nature of the predicament that Humanity is in, I've been searching for a solution. I just knew there had to be one. It was "like a splinter in my mind". One of my favourite films is Chicken Run. It has a lot of parallels to what I was trying to do. It's about a group of chickens who, at the instigation of a very determined hen called Ginger, are trying to escape from the farm. They try plan after plan and things are looking bleak, especially after they realise that the farmers are planning to change their end product from eggs to chicken pies. In one scene, Ginger is trying to enlist the help of a rooster called Rocky Rhodes, who is on the run from a circus:
Ginger: Mr. Rhodes, perhaps I didn't explain our situation properly. We lay eggs, day in and day out, and when we can't lay any more, they kill us. Rocky: It's a cruel world, doll-face. You might as well get used to it. Ginger: Which part of "they kill us" do you not understand? Rocky: Hey, I've got my own set of problems to worry about. Besides, this bird cage can't be that hard to bust out of. In fact, watch me. Ginger: It's not so hard to get one chicken out of here, or even two, but this is about all of us. Rocky: All of you? Ginger: That's what I've been trying to tell you. Rocky: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You want to get every chicken in this place out of here at the same time?! Ginger: Of course. Rocky: You're certifiable. You can't pull off a stunt like that. It's suicide. Ginger: Where there's a will, there's a way. Rocky: Couldn't agree more. And I will be leaving, that way.
All along, the solution I was seeking was for everybody. After years of obsessing over the problem, I did finally find it. The pay-offs were huge. It also required no effort or cost on most people's part, only agreement in principle. TPTB could not prevent it. I actually thought it would fly. I thought if people saw a way out, they would get behind it. Either that, or it would start a discussion that would lead to something even better. I thought the widespread apathy and hopelessness was due to a lack of ideas. I posted the plan on Evolver, and I thought people would get it. Almost no one did, and some that responded were actively hostile to it. Silly me. I failed to see that most people don't want to be free.
It's funny because everybody loves freedom, right? Or rather, they say they do. It is constantly celebrated in stories and films, in songs and speeches. It's champions are cultural heroes. And yet... when faced with the possibility of actual freedom, those same people recoil in horror. It turns out, they will do anything to avoid it, pay any price. They justify it by claiming that we don't have a choice. But that's a lie. By believing in the necessity for control, we have made a choice. We don't have to let a cabal of criminal psychopaths control us. We could stop playing their game any time we want to. But there's a catch. To do it, we have to really want to be free. Hardly anyone wants real freedom, because it doesn't just mean not being controlled. It also means renouncing our control of others. The tyrant is no more free than the slave. Both are controlled by fear. If we abolished money and and made all work voluntary, we would strip ourselves of our power to force others to give us what we want. Don't get me wrong. I'm still convinced that our souls' love of freedom is genuine. I don't think people are naturally cruel and selfish. But the false ego is. And as long as it holds sway, as long as we fail to recognise it and challenge it's insistence that it is "I", freedom will remain out of reach. Realistically, I don't see this changing anytime soon. Not unless conditions radically shift due to some unforeseen factor (which I don't rule out). And that's OK. Because, as within, so without. If there is a solution for "the world", then I can apply it just as well to my own path. I can still be free on the inside, where it truly matters. I can't choose freedom for anyone else. Only they can do that. All I can do is point out the exit, which I have, then walk through it myself. Now the splinter in my mind is gone. I don't regret the time and energy I spent working it out. At least now, when people tell me they don't have a choice, I can show them that they do.
In another scene from Chicken Run, Ginger is trying to motivate the chickens:
Ginger: You know what the problem is? The fences aren't just round the farm. They're up here, in your heads. There's a better place out there, somewhere beyond that hill, and it has wide open places, and lots of trees... and grass. Can you imagine that? Cool, green grass. Hen: Who feeds us? Ginger: We feed ourselves. Hen: Where's the farm? Ginger: There is no farm. Babs: Then, where does the farmer live? Ginger: There is no farmer, Babs. Babs: Is he on holiday? Ginger: He isn't anywhere! Don't you get it? There's no morning head count, no farmers, no dogs and coops and keys, and no fences. Bunty: In all my life, I've never heard such a fantastic load of tripe. Oh, face the facts, ducks. The chances of us getting out of here are a million to one. Ginger: Then there's still a chance.
Ginger is right. There is still a chance. It starts with each of us. It will happen when we free ourselves and free each other. That's what I intend to do.
This blog is a sequel to an earlier one I wrote, entitled "The Economy Must Die". That blog exposed the false mythology of the monetary economy. This one will suggest a possible alternative. As I see it, the biggest flaw of a currency based economy is the presence of coercion. Currency use cannot survive without coercion. Any system that institutionalises coercion can never lead to universal prosperity, peace or equality. If we want these things, we need a new economic model.
I've named this economic style MINO (money is no object). It is a gift economy. I'll first outline the system in brief, then switch to Q&A format to fill in the details. Finally, I'll present some benefits of a MINO economy.
SUMMARY: 1. All currencies are abolished. 2. All work is 100% voluntary. 3. An interactive, world wide web based platform is created to allow people to connect with each other and locate opportunities for voluntary service. The platform would be designed so that you could suggest group projects and solicit help in making them happen. It would include a search feature capable of sorting requests by priority (how essential they are), popularity (as determined by a built-in voting system), region, and type of service (ie. infrastructure, innovation, education, hospitality, agriculture, etc.) Once you had decided which requests to respond to, you could schedule yourself into any vacancy. 4. Ownership is determined by use. For example, if you are living in a dwelling, it's yours. If you abandon it, it isn't.
Q&A: Question- What would prevent some people from taking advantage by refusing to contribute?
Answer- First of all, this question is based on the assumption that there would be a labour shortage. In fact, adopting the MINO system would represent the largest lay-off in the history of the world. A short list of occupations that would disappear completely would include: banking and credit, stock market trading, billing, sales, insurance, cashiers, real estate, and taxation. MINO would also massively reduce the need for: 1. Health care. The number 1 cause of illness is stress. Other major factors are poor food quality and poverty. The MINO system would eventually eliminate these causes. 2. Policing. Most crime is undertaken solely for profit, ie. theft, fraud, extortion, prostitution, human trafficking, and environmental destruction. The purpose of police should be restricted to preventing coercive abuse of the vulnerable. 3. Advertising. Most of the energy presently devoted to advertising is aimed at manufacturing want for the sake of profit. MINO would reduce advertising to the promotion of group projects. 4. Manufacturing. Manufacturing for profit leads to poor quality goods, wasteful, destructive use of resources, and planned obsolescence. Also, many of the items are neither needed nor truly wanted. 5. War. Regardless of the reasons officially given, wars are almost always fought for profit. This list is incomplete but substantial. There would be no labour shortage. There would be many things we'd want to change if money were no object, so we'd be busier in the beginning than later on. It's impossible to say what the average service contribution would be, but I would guess about five hours per week or less, and falling over time.
Question- What would motivate people to volunteer for the least pleasant jobs in the absence of money?
Answer- Gratitude would replace financial incentive. In the absence of money, generosity would become the main source of social status. Consider the person who picks up your garbage. Have you ever felt grateful to him/her for his/her service? You probably never have because he/she is receiving a pay cheque. What if he/she was doing it voluntarily? In that case, I expect you would feel very differently. The jobs that are least intrinsically fulfilling would carry the most honour in a MINO economy. I've mostly worked in the hospitality area (cooking, serving, bar tending). The main drawback of that type of work, aside from sore feet and exhaustion due to overwork, is disrespect and mistreatment from customers. If the people I was serving knew that my service was a gift, I doubt that would happen. If I were doing it for 10 hours per week or less, and voluntarily, it wouldn't even feel like work. It would be fun, like hosting a party. This is work I would definitely volunteer for. I'd also make a point of occasionally scheduling myself for one of the grottier jobs because I think it's only fair that I should.
Question- What about scarcity? If demand exceeds supply, and the difference can't be remedied, who gets access?
Answer- This should be determined by each community and case-by-case. For necessities, it would probably be best to ration and/or ask for help from other regions. For non-essentials, raffling might be preferable. In either case, it would be an improvement over the current system where the same people (those with the most money) always have priority access.
I'm sure there are plenty of other questions about MINO. If you think of any, please use the comments area and I, or whoever else wants to, can try to answer.
Benefits of a MINO economy: 1. Quality: If money is no object, there is no reason to produce poor quality goods and services. 2. Sustainability: Improvements in quality will reduce waste. Sustainability and quality are intimately connected and profit is the enemy of both. Take food for example. Small, organic farms produce better quality food and can more easily be made fully sustainable. A great number of people dream of such a pastoral lifestyle. The only barrier they now face is financial. 3. Education: This will be one of the main growth areas in a MINO economy. Everyone will have a lot more free time, and the opportunity to share and acquire knowledge and training will be available to all. 4. Social harmony and connection: The MINO system replaces competition with cooperation. MINO also inspires gratitude towards others. When all work is voluntary, it isn't taken for granted, and appreciation is intrinsically fulfilling. 5. Improved health and longevity: When people lead fulfilling lives, free of anxiety, and with strong positive connections to their communities, they are happier and more relaxed. This has huge physical and mental health benefits. Throw in better food and a healthier environment, and throw out the profit motive in medicine, and see what happens. 6. Research and innovation: Imagine if quality, sustainability and social benefit, instead of profit, determined which research and technology received support. Things like free, clean energy and consciousness technologies would advance very quickly. Weapons development would receive little or no public enthusiasm, and so would decline. In the absence of the profit motive, knowledge would be shared instead hoarded. 7. An end to animal cruelty: The only reason to mistreat animals is because it's cheaper that caring for them with compassion.
Why should we not adopt such a system as MINO? All it would demand of us is maturity and trust in one another. If you need coercion in order to function in a socially responsible manner, you have no right to call yourself an adult. Surely being a mature adult means you don't need to be told what to do. If we adopted a MINO economy, or something like it, we could build a civilisation worthy of the name. The timing for this could not be better. In many countries, the average age of the population is rising. This is a problem in a monetary economy, but an advantage in a MINO system, since education and skills training will be some of the biggest growth areas. The monetary economy is likely to catastrophically collapse in the near future. If we start preparing to transition now, we could avoid a great deal of suffering. Every crisis is also an opportunity. We have only to rise to it. What if money were no object? Just imagine.....