RKM's essay is too nihilistic for me, though it is well taken. Even when I am feeling depressed by woman's inhumanity to woman, I breathe in through my 7th chakra and feel the energy and love pouring into my body. Is this just a myth? I'm not a seer and I can't see auras. I'm just acting on the faith in the Quaker belief that there is that of God in everyone and am thankful that I was taught how to meditate by a Jain teacher. I couldn't do what I do without that belief. No matter how far the conservatives (not parties, it's both parties) push the world, we still have our personal space inside. I often feel like the Native Americans who at the last did a Ghost dance, but I will still try to do my best to live my beliefs and I will still listen.
Allan Balliett wrote: > <Watching my father-in-law dying from pancreatic cancer, realizing > that his chemotherapy is doing nothing to prolong his life, but it is > making his last days a swirl of disorientation and nausea (at a cost > of $55,000), has heightened my awareness of how 'complete' the system > we live within has developed. The same people who profit from selling > de-vitalized food are the same people who profit from the > degenerative disease industry. How to imagine it is an accident that > conventional food is sprayed with toxins and grown on depleted soils. > How to imagine that we have become a nation living daily on the very > edge of clinical starvation. How many lifetime savings are > re-absorbed by the medical industry as our elders succomb? It's > astonishing how a population will willingly allow itself to be > exploited decade after decade. Nothing to blame but 'fate.' The > Cancer Industry is one of the more obvious reasons that biodynamic > food will never be served in school cafeterias. Below, Richard K. > Smith (check out his website) chides us for our refusal to wake up. > -Allan> > > Dear friends, > > When I was about six or seven, I got into trouble with the > neighbors because I told their kids there wasn't any Santa > Claus. Nobody had told me, I simply figured out that there > were too many chimneys, and too little time, for Santa to > visit everyone... not to mention that no sleigh could hold > that many presents. > > I mention this because Santa serves as a paradigm for > believing in the absurd. Why do people believe things that > make no sense, just because everyone else seems to believe? > In some sense, all my writing is simply a continuation of > what I was doing at six or seven... pointing out to people > that much of what they accept as true is not only false, but > absurd. The matrix is a shallow sham. > > My next youthful encounter with beliefs happened at about > 15, when I started thinking about Christianity. I didn't > conclude that Christianity was a lie, not then, but I did > conclude that there was no way I could tell whether or not > it had any validity. My reasoning went like this... suppose > I had been born in India, to a Hindu family. I would have > grown up believing in those myths, and those values, and not > have known I wouldn't be 'saved' when the 'Judgement Day' > came. How would I have known that I was learning > falsehoods, that my 'soul' was in danger? That then led to > the question: how did I know ~I~ wasn't learning falsehoods > in Christianity? I then realized there wasn't any way to > know... kids simply believe what they're told, that's the > long and the short of it. And kids are told what their > parents were told when they were kids. > > Now consider what people call 'conspiracy theories'. > Liberals have a knee-jerk way of dismissing certain ideas, > or evidence... "That sounds like a conspiracy theory". With > that, they consider the matter settled, the ideas or > evidence obviously refuted. I've tried on more than one > occasion to delve into this kind of non-reasoning. One > fellow articulated it rather well: "If such and such were > true, then it would eventually come out, we'd hear about > it". I think what he meant was that we'd hear about it in > the mainstream media. The same kind of non-reasoning which > a kid might use: "I don't care what the evidence is, if > there were no Santa my mommy would tell me." > > I call such thinking 'non-reasoning', not because there > isn't a logic to it, but because at the core we're talking > about faith rather than reason. A child was once asked by > his pastor, "What is faith?". His answer: "Believing what > you know isn't true". The pastor chuckled at the innocence, > but the kid had hit the nail on the head. Just like the kid > who pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes. > > Liberals have a faith that the system is fundamentally > legitimate. There may be corrupt officials, and > irresponsible corporations, and misleading media, but these > are anomalies. With a bit more reform, intelligent voting, > public education, etc., such rough edges can be rounded off > and everything will be OK. They have a hard time getting > their head around the idea that the whole system was > designed in the first place as a deception - to enable rule > by wealthy elites - and that the 'anomalies' reflect > precisely how the system is ~intended~ to function. > > Consider this thing people call 'democracy'. Anyone with > half a brain can see that it doesn't actually work. That > is, it does not achieve it's main purpose: to run the > country the way people want it run. Most people, survey > after survey shows, want things like nuclear disarmament, > peace, full employment, a sound environment, etc. > Government policies, quite obviously, are aimed in entirely > the other direction. So why do most people continue to > believe that they live in a democracy? It boggles the mind. > I could explain, and I have, why a system based on parties > and elections could never be democratic, but there's little > point. Such explanations mean little to someone who is > governed by faith. Until someone is ready to question, they > don't have much capacity to look at answers. > > And then there's capitalism, today's dominant religion. > Never has there been a clearer example of the emperor's new > clothes. The first thing to look at, as with all issues, is > the results - the empirical facts. Today, when capitalism > is more dominant than ever before, we see all around the > world declining standards of living, unstable economies, a > wrecked environment, poverty, famine, genocide, disease, > eroding civil liberties, and the destabilization of already > pitiful democratic institutions. Capitalism is a dark cloud > whose few silver linings are rapidly disappearing. And yet, > how many people are ready to question capitalism as a > system? What is it that maintains this blind faith? > > Certainly it isn't the theory of capitalism. The theory is > even more absurd than the results on the ground. The theory > talks about fair and open competition among a large number > of small producers and consumers, none of whom can > individually effect market prices. It's an intriguing > theory, but it has nothing to do with capitalism. > Capitalism has always been about turning control of the > economy over to wealthy investors, industrialists, and > bankers - it is the ISM of CAPITAL. It is a ~political~ > doctrine, justified by a false economic argument. It is a > system of elite rule, whose actual economic nature changes > from time to time - depending on what best serves to > maximize elite wealth and to maintain elite control. If > sharing the wealth (1945-1980) serves that purpose, so be it > - but otherwise forget it. If protectionism serves elite > interests, then we have protectionism; if free trade serves > elite interests, then we have free trade. No matter how > often capitalism changes its tune, the flock keeps its faith > nonetheless. At least with Christianity there's a bit of > consistency. > > Closely linked to capitalism is the relationship between the > West and the third world. Most Westerners believe that the > West strives to help the third world, out of humanitarian > concern. Where does such blind faith come from? Certainly > it isn't from history, from current practice, or from > looking at the results. Never for one moment has the West > done anything to the third world except exploit, plunder, > murder, and dominate. How can so many people believe the > opposite of what is plain to see? > > In some sense, we can answer all these Why and How questions > by pointing to the mass media and the education systems. > But even those who question the media usually do so entirely > too halfheartedly. Most people see the media as trying to > tell the truth, but over influenced by government and > corporations. Not so. The purpose and practice of the > corporate-controlled media is to present a charade, a > fictional world - a world where capitalism is beneficial, > the West is humanitarian, democracy works, etc. etc. Out of > all the events going on in the world, most are ignored (eg., > East Timor genocide for two decades). A few selected > stories are followed, and each is slanted to maintain the > charade. > > Many people have written to me, saying that they find my > analysis persuasive, but that they find it too discouraging > to accept. I find this attitude very difficult to fathom. > It's the choice Cypher makes in The Matrix: "Insert me back > in the Matrix, and take away all my memories." It's the > choice of a heroin addict, who seeks oblivion. I can > understand how someone can believe what the flock believes, > out of self-doubt, before I can understand how someone could > consciously choose to believe lies because it's comfortable. > > If this were all a matter of academic truth, then it > wouldn't matter much. The point, however, is that WE MUST > CHANGE THINGS IF HUMANITY IS TO SURVIVE IN OTHER THAN DISMAL > SERVITUDE. If you don't want to do anything about it, and > you just want to hide in the matrix, then you can believe > what you want. But if you want to do anything effective, > then you must understand what the system is really about. > If you consider yourself an activist, and you're working > from the wrong map of reality, then you're wasting your > time. > > For example, let's consider some of the responses of > activists to the World Trade Center incident and Bush's > phony War on Terrorism. One of the responses has been to > preach an attitude of understanding and forgiveness, to > counter feelings of outrage and revenge. This is a waste of > time for two reasons. Not that understanding and > forgiveness are not good things, but they are strategically > irrelevant. The first reason is that popular sentiments for > revenge have nothing to do with the war being pursued by > Bush. They are not the cause, they are the excuse. The > second reason is that we don't live in a democracy. If 90% > of the population wanted peace and forgiveness, that > wouldn't change government policy one iota - although it > might lead to a different slant in media propaganda. > > Another response, among those who suspect that the CIA knew > beforehand of the attack, is to call for a Federal > investigation. That's like asking the fox to investigate > the theft of hens. Either there won't be an investigation, > or it will be a cover-up, like most Federal investigations > before it. When a crime is committed, the perpetrator is > not the one to turn to for help. > > Just as Santa could not visit billions of homes in one > evening, a hijacked airliner could not proceed unmolested > for 35 minutes after the second World Trade building had > been hit - not without top-level complicity from Washington. > Can't you see this for yourself? Do you need to wait for a > prime time news broadcast to tell you? If so, it will never > happen. Your grandchildren ~might~ learn the truth on the > History Channel, as we've recently learned that FDR knew in > advance about Pearl Harbor, but it will be too late then. > > The reality of the WTC attack is that it was a replay of the > Reichstag fire - a self-inflicted outrage designed to usher > in a fascist regime. If you're reading from another map, > you'll never get anywhere. Not that the true map makes the > job easy, not at all. Overcoming global fascism will be a > monumental task. But until we recognize what the task is, > we cannot begin it. > > imho, > rkm > http://cyberjournal.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
