Indoctrination Blinding the Spiritually-oriented from their Participation in Evil
posted by satyagrahi | January 25, 2012
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketMany "evolutionaries" recognize the great change that's needed, usually citing social, economic and environmental crisis as evidence; yet they then promote a "solution" that ignores their own participation in the root source of all those problems. To ignore that the worst destruction in the world is rooted in the creation of social-systems, and to think a social-system is, or can be made virtuous, is not facing the facts of today or history. You are ignoring how social-systems are inherently violent (by disallowing sovereignty and living naturally, through land control/cost and taxation), and how you support them everyday through submission to taxation, etc. Of course inner change (i.e. evolution of consciousness) is equally crucial, but if you just focus on that and ignore the whole outer reality/social-structure, your View is too narrow to really effect the positive change that is needed.
What's needed is an inner AND outer revolution, our experience is an inner and outer one is it not? Common-sense, but many would rather not face the implications. Love IS the answer, but we must recognize the unloving actions we are taking by participating in social-systems, like paying taxes that are used to build bombs that kill children, and toxify the entire planet, that isn't exactly loving now is it? You may consider yourself a purely "spiritual being", but if you pay taxes you're a political being! When you pay for war and other massive destruction (from various subsidized industries, etc.) every year of your life, do you think that's irrelevant, because you're "just spiritual"? People that think so are in denial, blinding themselves to the truth with bunk philosophy.
The idea of there being a real divide between spirituality (i.e. doing inner work / the inner world), and politics (i.e. doing outer work / the outer world), is completely false.
Obviously what we do inside effects the outside, and what occurs on the outside effects the inside. Innumerable examples of that dynamic could be given, but I'll just give a couple:
1) A child is physically abused, this creates trauma and the creation of subconscious beliefs and concepts that negatively effect/control their adult behavior (effecting the outer world), until they do the inner work to "reprogram" their minds. (News Flash: Politics create trauma.)
2) A compassionate and kind adult becomes sick, losing their ability to concentrate and focus (effecting their inner world), severely hampering their meditation practice. Later they discover the illness was due to a toxin they were being exposed to, from some FDA approved product.
This is not a complicated phenomenon, the problem is that people are not seeing the "Oneness" of our inner and outer reality. And what's more, they are not understanding that both inner & outer oppression/tyranny/harm have the same solution, namely the Golden Rule. There are spiritual people who agree with that principle as being key for enlightenment, but then they ignore the reality that social-systems violate that principle by being inherently violent and tyrannical, in whatever form they take. Do you want others controlling your life, stealing your income, and your birthright to your fair share of the Earth's resources? If not, then you shouldn't support that being done to others, therefore you shouldn't support governance. ("Anarchy? No that wouldn't work..." I can already hear the masses say in response.) This is where people's critical thinking and logical reasoning usually stop, because of intense indoctrination they received, especially during childhood. This creates a giant blind spot in many people's view of the world, and what the root problems in it really are. They don't yet see that all the mass environmental, social & health destruction, including the current and increasing assault on the foundations of biological life itself (GMO's, Nanotechnology, Radiation exposure, and Artificial Chemicals that break-down our DNA), all have the same origin: social-systems, that are based on violence and domination, i.e. a violation of the Golden Rule. All of this mass-destruction only became possible with the unnatural and unjust funneling of wealth and power to the few via social-systems, "democratic" or not. (Please re-read that last sentence.)
If you're thinking "No, it's not government that's the problem, but lack of democracy", or something similar, or perhaps "government is a necessary evil to keep us safe", please read the top 2 essays here, in which I explain the error of such perspectives: http://colindonoghue.wordpress.com
How do we unite with Inner Nature, with inner Freedom, Peace and Love?
It appears to me the answer is basically by loving ourselves and others, and not complying with the conflicting false authority of any inner beliefs that oppose that, so that we can attain clear "Awareness of Awareness" (i.e. "God/dess realization), or "Enlightenment" in the context of the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path. Not an easy practice, or one I've mastered myself, but we can probably agree it is a principled common-sense path to inner (r)evolution.
The same is true with how we connect with outer Nature: overcoming false beliefs (like "government is necessary and virtuous") and not complying with the false authority of government which threatens us into violating the Golden Rule, under duress. For practicing that noncompliance, the outer (r)evolution, we each need sovereign cost/tax free land so we can connect with the Earth, each other and other species harmoniously, via veganic homesteading (ending our dependency on and participation with the destructive corporatocracy, and livestock industries). Anarchy, like Veganism, is just an expansion of Love beyond unfounded limitations; It is only false beliefs that hinder that understanding.
How many times have I heard "Love is the answer" from others? It's countless. How many of those same people recognize and admit the un-Loving reality of all social-systems and animal domestication/slavery/murder? Unfortunately, I could count the people I've encountered who really do with the fingers of one hand. This is the main reason why the world is as terrible as it is.
Comments
I'm not so sure those .......
— Jan 26, 2012
I'm not so sure those living in anarchy would agree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
"Somalia has been characterized as a failed state and is one of the poorest and most violent states in the world." (from the Wiki..)
Nor is love prevailing in Somalia.
People band together to get things done they can not do themselves and that cost's money so, they pay taxes. Can a tax system be abused? Yes, it can.
You offer a timely problem
— Jan 25, 2012
You offer a timely problem but I see no solution in your words either. What are you proposing, exactly? Organization is not, in an of itself, an evil, and is the very nature of things. Anarchy favors those who are most physically (or nuclear-ly) fortuitous. If you don't want to organize, and you don't believe in anarchy, what is your solution?
“An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.”-Victor Hugo
Maybe it's just me
— Jan 26, 2012
Maybe it's just me but I'm sure whom your responding to. If it's @ me then I'd say there are no perfect solutions in organized Governments. All require compromise or will be totalitarian. Perhaps a better solution is a Government that works and gets those things done that need to be done wisely, honestly and well. Some will never be happy in any form of Government and will remain unhappy, some will be happy for awhile and then things will/may change making them unhappy, such is life, we never get what we want all the time and if we did we would be bored to death. :)
Myself, I think those that propose anarchy as a solution are doing little more then expressing their frustration with government or have a system in mind and simply want to create conditions were that government could come into power or have not thought through what a state of chaos anarchy would be.
Anarchy is not a system of government it is the absence of government and in time a void that will be filled.
Such Utopian ideas have
— Jan 27, 2012
Such Utopian ideas have been tried and failed. In theory they sound good, some people try them but very few have succeedrd. You might consider living with the Amish. You may find it a bit more challenging then you might think and much more hard work, much more then you might imagine. There is far more to it then you might think. Theirs is a moralistic alternative live style. The sixties and 70's had many communes. I know some people that did that, they stopped after a few years. There is always Alaska and parts of Canada where you can get cheap land but you'll have to pay some taxes. You can barter for your tax dollars. No more money then you'd be making you may not pay taxes at all. You may freeze your ass off but your taxes would be very low. There are options.
Yes, I know what anarchy means. Seems keeping and orderly society might be a problem and the rest of the world may not agree so you'll need a standing army. Do you think your anarchist idea will be able to educate them? What will you do as medical treatment languishes and mortality, especially infant mortality increases. Do you think a primitive society based on barter can support care for the aged? How will you handle cities if you get big enough? Who will pay for the streets and fire departments without taxes? Sewers in your plan?
Nope I'm sorry the world will keep going as it is till it has to change before we go back to the per 1900's lifestyle or something like it. Unless your talking of Communism and that failed recently to, seems it was to expensive to maintain.
Good luck
common misperceptions that were already addressed
— Jan 26, 2012
"People band together to get things done they can not do themselves and that cost's money so, they pay taxes. Can it a tax system be abused? Yes, it can."
Actually that does not have to cost money, you have pretty much missed the whole point of what I was saying, namely the only reason we need money is because we are forced into social-systems, i.e. human farms. Voluntary communities made up of sovereign homesteads would be able to help each other more, not less, no longer being hindered by the corrupting force of monetary-dependency through forced taxation and land control/cost.
The current events in Somalia in no way reflect what true anarchy is; do all Somalians have free sovereign land on which they could become self/community-sufficient? Are they all free of the burden of unjust debt and taxation? The chaos we observe is the result of social-systems, not the lack thereof. I recommend you actually read the wordpress essay I link to above to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about; the common (indoctrinated) knee-jerk reaction that "anarchy = chaos" is an inaccurate short-sighted perspective that lacks the deeper analysis needed to see the true reality, and the real problem & solution. Saying wherever there is not government is a "void that must be filled" is unsubstantiated defeatism and also ignores all the points made in my post and essay. Seeking "honest" and "wise" government is delusional, also ignoring my points on how a truly "just government" is an oxymoron.
Meg: "You offer a timely problem but I see no solution in your words either. What are you proposing, exactly? Organization is not, in an of itself, an evil, and is the very nature of things."
It isn't clear if you're referring to my post or the comment prior to your own, but in case you think anarchy = no organization, that's incorrect, e.g. I refer specifically to communities organizing together for land reform. Also I propose something very exactly, so I don't know why you asked what I'm proposing; it appears you have not read my post & essay completely and carefully as well, please re-read this post and the aforementioned wordpress essay.
"Anarchy favors those who are most physically (or nuclear-ly) fortuitous."
Also incorrect; it is social-systems that created nuclear weaponry and the few positions of power that control it. Therefore we are actually safer without these systems; a point also elaborated on in the above essay, including other supporting arguments like the issue of being charged with a "pre-crime".
Government is the "strong", they are the ones with unnatural amounts of destructive power that do the most harm. They also commit the constant violence of forcing people to submit to their authoritarianism, which we are indoctrinated to believe is just and for the greater good, but it is in fact not. The old saying "The first duty of government is to protect the powerless against the powerful" presupposes that the main threat to the powerless is not government itself, and this is a false belief.
now what
— Jan 26, 2012
I like what Meg said. Satyagrahi offers us a situation, So Now What?
satyagrahi hints at a solution:
"Voluntary communities made up of sovereign homesteads would be able to help each other more..."
What are ways we can go forward from here? What kind of questions can we be asking? What are ways we can access the wisdom to create real solutions?
I like the idea of conscious community. That's what we're here on Evolver for, right? So, Satyagrahi, how could we go about making these "voluntary communities" a reality?
Thank you very much for your post. I think it raises some good questions!
please read my post and essays carefully before commenting
— Jan 26, 2012
William, you're welcome, I'm glad you find it valuable, thanks for the positive feedback. As for your question, I also answer that in the post, and more specifically in the wordpress essays I link to. I don't want to repeat myself over and over, but I will in brief one more time: LAND REFORM. CLAIMING SOVEREIGN LAND AS A BIRTHRIGHT, WITH OTHERS DOING THE SAME, FORMING VOLUNTARY GIFT-ECONOMY COMMUNITIES. But again please read the top 2 posts on the wordpress page for the full reasoning and more specifics. Peace.
Middle Ground
— Jan 27, 2012
I would say that anarchy can be a valuable tool, but as a means to an end. An alternative system would have to be designed and ready for implementation immediately after any anarchist action has rendered the current system nonfunctional. I will say (after reading Colin Donoghue's essay), that his plan, by means of "individual sovereignty" in a communal state is a bit too utopian to be realistic. The biggest sector of the population of the world is primarily in cities, and it would be doubtful that people would be willing to leave the cities for rural communal living; as Mr. Donoghue proposes (even if there is enough rural area for more than 7 billion people). There has to be a happy medium between this utopian point of view, and the corrupt corporate totalitarian system we are under now. In reading the "Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital", Marx has many valid points as well. But Marx is also somewhat of a utopian, and the problem with communism, was that it led to dictatorships, and abuses of every sort. There was nothing wrong with Marx's philosophy, just in the way it was perverted and then administered by the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba. If communism was maintained in its purest form, it would be a wonderful and just system to live under, in cities as well as rurally, and a legitimate alternative. But, as I said, it leads to too much abuse, however, many of its ideals could be incorporated into a new system, and indeed be effective. Obtaining middle ground will be the revolutionary challenge of our time; addressing the spiritual, social, and material needs of the masses will be a constant work in progress.
Thumbs Up
— Jan 28, 2012
I enjoyed Your writing and will share it with others. I found it very direct and constructive.
As much as I agree with Your (more) ideal Worldview, there are undoubtedly some debatable points.
I understand that no one can hope for something 'bad' to disappear if they participate in it. This means that only by living a life that is in correspondence with the belief of how the life should be lived can we constructively contribute to the current, urgently needed change. So, the mentioned Golden Rule comes into effect.
But this brings forth the, imo, root problem: people of today are thought to bow to pre-made philosophies without considering them and use the full arsenal of psychological defense mechanisms to comfort themselves about the irregularities in moments of reasoning, as well as to avoid confronting the simple truth of the Golden Rule's logical implications.
Solution? I see no fast way out of this: a radical change to the education system that would empower people to think instead of pumping them with information they could seek out themselves if they wanted so.
This, of course is a short description and I will look into it to post more on my evolver.blog in the upcoming weeks.
Anyway, this lift in human perception needs a few generations. We went a long way down into the abyss, and we certainly need a few days to fly out of it. ;)
more of the same...
— Jan 28, 2012
Thanks mozzribo, I appreciate your compliment and sharing of the post.
To everyone, I know what I'm presenting here is more radical than what many people are used to, and so it can be difficult to process at first, but that said, I am still frustrated with the irrationality and undue negativity of much of the feedback I'm receiving. The reason I have disabled comments on my wordpress page is to avoid what's happening here: having the clearness of my argument muddied by a) questions that completely ignore what I've already answered/addressed in the writing, and b) comments that make claims that aren't true c) comments that bring up ideas as if they were my own that I either reject or never say in the writing itself.
It's amazing how common it is for people to be unable to read something without mentally adding their own content to it, and then commenting on that, as if it was in the original work. (Goes to show how true it is that perception is warped by the sub/conscious mind). Whether intentional or not, it serves only to distort truth. I will address a few examples here, and will then probably ignore any future comments that are equally irrational, untrue and/or misleading. (Hopefully there won't be any more though!)
For the 1st example, how can anyone bring up communism and communal living as if I'm promoting either, when I clearly oppose both in my writing? I did NOT say anything about a "communal state" in this post, my argument is clearly and repeatedly anti-state. (Additionally I explicitly speak against socialism/communism and communal living in "The Right Revolution" essay , the second of the 2 essays which I've previously referred to.) You are saying I said the OPPOSITE of what I actually said!
Next, modern medical treatment as justification for social-systems? Besides being irrelevant to the issues of personal sovereignty, land as our birthright, and the fundamental and indefensible violence of social-systems, have you never heard of Natural Medicine? (Not to mention epigenetics, energy-healing, etc.) Perhaps you think that's "inferior" and "primitive"; If so, that's just an irrelevant opinion to my arguments, and additionally one that I would say only exists because of ignorance of the truth. Most disease is caused by "advanced" civilization! What are the top 3 causes of death in the Unites States? 1. Heart Disease (which is mainly caused by an unnatural diet, which is dominant because of social-systems) 2. Cancer (which is mainly caused by toxins and radiation exposure, which exist and are dominant because of social-systems). 3. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE by Establishment Medicine (which is created by and supported by the social-system).
And caring for the elderly? As if natural communities have never effectively cared for the elderly! Also irrelevant to my main points.
"The biggest sector of the population of the world is primarily in cities, and it would be doubtful that people would be willing to leave the cities for rural communal living."
What percentage wish to leave the urban control-grids for their birthright and natural living therein is irrelevant to my point that it should be an option for those that DO desire to. Also, the fact that cities are growing (along with the increased environmental destruction and human overpopulation that comes with that growth) is not at all an indication of their popularity; people are being FORCED to live in cities because they simply CAN'T live freely & naturally due to land control, cost and taxation.
Another: Reform the public education system? So that it will teach children that they are currently being indoctrinated to accept false beliefs and servitude to the state? What would that class be called, "How you are a slave to lies, money and false authority"? Yeah, that's really a likely possibility... I'm sure that'll be approved by Congress and promoted by the President. Also you somehow have missed the whole thesis of my post and essays by suggesting a reformist "solution".
Lastly, to quickly and totally disregard the sound logic, ecology, ethics and facts that I present because, in your mind, it simply amounts to something you derogatorily call "utopian", and is therefore "impossible", is no rational counter-argument. Also deferring the change that is needed now to "future generations" is not recognizing the severity and immediacy of the crisis nor is it taking the responsible/moral action that is appropriate for it.
And so, adios Evolver, maybe some people will hear what I actually say, not ignore whole sections of my writing, nor add their own distortions, and then it will be of benefit. But as I said before I don't enjoy repeating myself, so I will stop. Take care.
"Reform the public education system"
— Jan 28, 2012
With this, did You refer to my comment?
If You did not, disregard the nature of the following.
If you did, maybe I was unclear with what I want to say, or, with due respect, are You falling into the same mistake You just criticized? :) I will try to make my point more clear (although I as well feel like repeating):
People [children] should be thought how to THINK. To believe in themselves and the truth which this view brings by itself (and the Golden Rule is a simple truth that many thinkers throughout history have found out by themselves, without any external pressure). Not be indoctrinated by any means.
For me this doesn't sound in any way new, radical, false, or idealistic. As the matter of the fact many researches have proven the validity of my point. It does, however, call for a reform in the education system. It is a necessary step forward achieving something similar to what You described and what I believe is a pretty good solution (even though, given the real state of events, it's not the most probable).
And of course the congress (interesting that the World sometimes thinks as if it was USA) is unlikely to accept such a reform. It is currently fueled by lies and their indoctrination upon the minds of the state's people. My point is (as I understood that the one with Your posts is) that this is rational step toward a more conscious, responsible and united humanity.
Of course you wish to discount
— Jan 28, 2012
Of course you wish to discount the points you've just stated because they will not work in an anarchy social system. Your rebuttals were weak and ineffective. You will need to do better to convince most of the people that anarchy will bring them better lives over current systems. You want to transform all of humanity to a system that seems flawed, yet, avoid the critical thinking process that might make that possible. Until you can defeat anarchists critics effectively you can not hope to have it actually be accepted by others. Of course you will need to meet them directly to do that not hide your head in the sand. That of course would take determination, a cool head and some real thought. If you truly want your ideas to succeed then you must win in the "arena of public opinion". My guess is you can not defend it because anarchy is too flawed a system to work. I would suggest next time you present anarchism that you do so better prepared.
Find a truly better system and we all might join you but do not expect everyone to agree with you until you do.
I'm done. :)
Hello. :) Thanks for Your
— Jan 28, 2012
Hello. :)
Thanks for Your thoughts, but I would like to see where did I actually say that anarchy is the way to go? I only agreed that it COULD be good solution, not the only one. My posts only point toward something that is not - but in THEORY it could be achieved.
I am far from well-educated in the matter. All I did is to respond to the main topic(s). I feel like You are attacking me just because what is discussed here is against Your views. I might be wrong.
Let me give You my ACTUAL thoughts, just to show that I am very well aware of some facts and that I clearly see problems on the path of anarchy's manifestation:
Throughout history, anarchy was founded upon and practiced mainly through terrorism and written in blood. Few are the cases and very short termed that actually worked. Today we have those who call themselves anarchists and that are peaceful, but they have problems of their own.
Theoretically, it has developed into a way too wide concept to be considered as a unique approach (anarchy implemented into politics can mean a lot of things) and all of them have further problems, all related to RIGHTS; since this is a common philosophical problem with no ideal solution up to date (as far as I'm informed), I see no point in thinking about making anarchy reality. It is only my personal interest, as I am searching for the IDEAL system by which I can live. Simply because of the fact that the terms describes a state (of mind) in which no person has power/authority over the other. That doesn't mean that there is no government, rules, or organizations in some imaginable way... This inner search hasn't got MUCH to do with the social system I am contributing to. I found the main post very insightful (as it, imo, points to different significant ideas about us) and commented on it, to evolve my (and perhaps others') thoughts.
I really do not wish to argue. I am stating my points of view which I believe to be true. I know that I can be wrong, so Your criticism is welcome, but please let it be assertive. I hope this is not too much to ask. :)
On the other hand, I would like to hear some ideas to a better system from Your side. ;)
good post and responses
— Jan 28, 2012
I want to comment before I change my mind.
Sovereign homesteads.....Yes indeed.....Those who have established these can teach others to do the same......After a time can the lords of the lands(those who established the homestead)get too comfortable/complacent....and all those within the community dance to their tune.....Letting go and moving on is a big step.
These are things which are very enjoyable to talk about but making this reality is another matter. One can know what to do but putting such self sacrifice into a daily practice that never stops.....wow.
I could stop drinking coffee and eating a diet rich in meats and sweets but these things satisfy the moment(reptile mind). We will begin with things that we can change
When I read posts on this site I get excited and feel myself stepping into the starting blocks as if okay ready set.........nothiiiiing, It doesn´t happen quickly it is a process that must be assimilated into one´s entire being
One will find joy in watching very little happen on the outside while nearly everything happens on the inside. The contrast is amazing...vice versa as well.
That´s my two cents
Chaio
