Home page Site map Terms of use Website design services
 
Mailing List
If you'd like to be informed about updates to this site, click here



 


moon phase
 

CURRENT SUN
Current solar state SOHO 28.4nm
Solar X-rays
X-ray status
Geomagnetic Field
Geomagnetic field status

More data

I question the AIDS establishment. Join me!

Archive for the ‘Socio-political’ Category

Secret government

Monday, April 2nd, 2007

“Today as never before it is important that human beings should not overlook the danger of the evil lurking within them. It is unfortunately only too real, which is why psychology must insist on the reality of evil and must reject any definition that regards it as insignificant or actually non-existent. Psychology is an empirical science and deals with realities.”
Carl Gustav Jung

Two recent articles came in this week. One from the blog Thomas Paine’s corner on the subject of ‘Omnicidal Elitists: Their Killers, Their Science, Their Plan’ and the other from Paul Levy‘s mailing list, entitled The War on Consciousness. Both heavily critical of the behaviour of the present US administration. (For those astrologically inclined: no surprise that both appeared within the shadow of both Pluto and Jupiter stationing retrograde.)

The former veers too far off the scale of plausible rationale for me, though the underlying patterns it highlights are valid enough. Paul Levy’s essay is much more on target, and more so because it acknowledges the complicity and involvement of all citizens in the actions of their governments. The complicity he acknowledges is that of a gullible populace all too willing to swallow everything the Triad of government/corporate/media feed them. His solution to the situation is to wake up and smell the rot, and to say “no!” to what our governments are doing in our name. He continues …

“The solution to winning the war on consciousness is for us to RECOGNIZE the nature of the war we are in, which can only happen through the agency of our consciousness. Realizing that the true war we are in is an assault on our own minds is the expansion of consciousness which is itself simultaneously the solution. From a deeper, more expansive perspective, the war on consciousness is itself the very catalyst and instrument for consciousness to awaken to itself. 

“It is our turn to come together so as to render powerless these sick criminals who have been terrorizing us. We can help each other to access our intrinsic heart-centered power and collectively turn the light of truth upon them so that they have no where to hide from their lies and corruption. For “truth”, to quote the infamous Nazi Hermann Goering, is “the greatest enemy of the state.” Bush and the private interests who keep him in power and profit richly from his actions are absolutely terrified of one thing – the truth. As the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Like pouring water on the Wicked Witch of the West in “The Wizard of Oz”, when the true light of awareness is shed on what Bush and the real powers behind him are doing, their illegitimate power over us is dis-spelled as the illusion it always was.”

But do we get away quite so lightly? We are more complicit here than we know, and no matter how extreme and insane things are becoming, there is a huge danger in distancing ourselves in any way from the behaviour of our governments at this point in time. We always get the governments we deserve. The populace throws up leaders that are reflective of the state of the collective psyche at any one point in time. It is impossible for us to do anything else: we constitute the body politic. The very reason leaders become candidates for leadership in the first place is by virtue of their personal resonance with the particular archetypes constellating out of the collective, and votes are really neither here nor there. It’s not conscious reasoned choice (or even widespread vote rigging) that decides an election so much as the currents in the collective unconscious, just the same as it’s an individual’s unconscious shadow dynamics that drive their behaviour for much of the time. Our leaders are our representatives in a very real sense, far more so than through the lip service paid to their outward role of representing their constituents’ will.

The more Blair and Bush & Co act out their own shadow dynamics, the more cunning spin they put on their actions to gloss over their fundamental immorality, the more resources they put into the hands of the corporations, the more croneyism they exhibit, the more convinced they become that they alone are ‘right’, the more they seem determined to have things their own way, the more they reflect the very things that the majority of us are doing on our own small scales. Take any ‘average’ individual, magnify and inflate them up onto the world stage with all the power that comes with it, and you’ll get something very similar, even if not so fittingly representative of the entire collective as those who got there by virtue of the perfection of their sympathetic resonance. As above, so below. As below, so above.

So as we continue to add extensions to our houses, or fell another block of woodland to build yet another McMansion, trade in the old saloon for one – no, make it two – of an ever-growing range of ever-larger gas-guzzling 4x4s, continue to subscribe to the idea that permanent economic growth, collectively and individually, is the only measure of success, believe that our viewpoint is the only ‘true’ one, limit our circle of interest and compassion to those of our ‘tribe’ however we might define it (and the rest can go hang), increase our employer’s ‘shrinkage’ budget by helping ourselves to the odd ‘perk’, feel that we’re somehow ‘justified’ in making the odd fraudulent insurance claim, attempt to save face by putting an interesting spin on our actions or otherwise lie to our friends and families and ourselves, throw out perfectly good household items because we want the newer, better model … should we be in the least surprised that we get the leaders we do?

If there’s immorality, or at best amorality, in government, corporations and media, then that’s only because the same exists in the general population. Egotistical self-inflation at individual level can only find it’s reflection in egotistical self-inflation at the top of the heap. And not just in our egos: in our bodies, our houses, our cars, our corporations (for more on this theme, see the article Time for a Change of Heart?). We’re fooling ourselves if we think that we’re all right and “they” are the “sick criminals”. We’re hypocrites if it’s only the scale of what our leaders are doing that separates them from us. That’s where the secret government really resides. Not in the endless conspiracies projected onto the rich and powerful (though there’s undoubtedly no smoke without flames), but in the unconscious dynamics that support and maintain them in their positions of power – the Jungian shadow in all of us – the evil that we’re busy denying, acting out and attempting to spin out of existence both individually and through the lens that is our leadership.

There is enormous difficulty in identifying ourselves with the worst excesses of our governments’ behaviours. There is an instinctive rejection of the suggestion that such ‘evil’ resides within each of us, and in many senses that instinct is sound. ‘Evil’ is an abstract concept that stands in stark opposition to ‘good’ and we cannot associate our everyday and mostly well-meaning behaviour with such a polarised horror. Such dualistic judgement isn’t helpful here. But look again. The difference between what we and those around us are doing and what our governments are doing is mostly just a matter of degree. The small badnesses we accept as part and parcel of daily life are easy to overlook and live with, which is what we generally do. It’s only when they’re scaled up to huge proportions that they become plainly ‘evil’ to us. Yet the small and the large are the same thing in essence, and this is what we need to see in the behaviour of our governments. This is the mirror they hold up for us to look in.

‘Evil’ is only ‘live’ back to front, which neatly represents the recipe for its neutralisation. It’s the energy of the disowned part of ourselves that comes back to us warped and twisted through the mirror of life. Attraction OR repulsion signals its existence as a personal shadow issue. Accept it simply for what it is; own it directly, consciously, and its reflection loses its power to make us act out. We are then free to consciously choose. THAT is how to truly dsempower it, because only when it’s no longer representative of a shadow dynamic within the collective psyche does it cease to have power, and only when we each individually have faced our own shadow issues will we cease to throw up leaders who represent them and magnify them for us.

There’s no ‘them’ and ‘us’ here. ‘Them’ and ‘us’ is part of the problem. We’re all in it together.

The last word goes to the great man himself, C G Jung. (Or at least it did until the wonderful video recording of him talking about man as the origin of all coming evil was removed from YouTube due to a copyright claim by Pennsylvania State University. Here is a brief snippet instead.)

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Max Planck



A time to break silence

Sunday, February 11th, 2007

“Since it is now physically and metaphysically demonstrable that the chemical elements resources of Earth already mined or in recirculation, plus the knowledge we now have, are adequate to the support of all humanity and can be feasibly redesign-employed [...] to support all humanity at a higher standard of living than ever before enjoyed by any human, war is now and henceforth murder. All weapons are invalid. Lying is intolerable. All politics are not only obsolete but lethal.”
R Buckminster Fuller

“At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in [the country we are fighting] and to understand the arguments of those who are called “enemy,” I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in [the country we are fighting] is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among [the people of the country we are fighting], and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

“Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of [my deity] and brother to the suffering poor of [the country we are fighting]. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of [this country] who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in [the country we are fighting]. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves [this country], to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

“This is the message of the great [religious] leaders of [the country we are fighting]. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

“”Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of [our people] and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. [The country invading us is] forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that [their leaders], who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of [the country invading us] will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.”

“If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in [the country we are fighting]. If we do not stop our war against the people of [the country we are fighting] immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of [this country] that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in [the country we are fighting], that we have been detrimental to the life of the [people of the country we are fighting]. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in [the country we are fighting], we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.”

Incidental and largely irrelevant contextual details of this speech:
Date of delivery – April 4 1967
Spoken by – Martin Luther King Jr
[the country we are fighting] – Vietnam
[this country] – America
[religion (of country we are fighting)] – Buddhism
[my deity] – God

“You do not become a ‘dissident’ just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society.”
Václav Havel



Parking the professionals

Monday, July 17th, 2006

“We need to learn to set our course by the stars, not by the lights of every passing ship.”
Omar Nelson Bradley

It was just an incidental comment that struck me in an idle moment as I was half-reading a report in today’s online Guardian about why we should be nice to parking wardens (written by the chief executive of the British Parking Association, natch). He says “The British Parking Association is the largest organisation in Europe for parking professionals.”

I’ve no doubt it is, but parking professionals? Without wishing to be in the least bit insulting to parking wardens, who I’ve no doubt are fine people doing a pretty boring and unenviable job, this does seem to be stretching the definition of “professional” somewhat. Or am I just being an elitist snob? It does seem that if we’re to call everyone who earns a living by some gainful employment in which they observe the standards of that employment a “professional” then the usefulness of the word to distinguish some parts of the working population from others has been lost. Though given the word’s elitist associations, perhaps this is no bad thing.

However, this stampede to claim the label for all manner of activities in recent years is perhaps something that needs closer examination. Why does everyone want to assume the mantle? Aside from the desire to create a more egalitarian perspective on the value of various activities to society as a whole, there’s this whole business to do with “professionalism”, to do with the upholding of certain standards. We talk about having a “professional” attitude to distinguish it from some other attitude which by definition is other than “professional” and by implication the expected norm. Yet a closer examination of what makes up that “professional” attitude reveals mostly a set of moral, ethical, behavioural and competency standards that are only natural to any average decent person intending to do a good job. Why should we be trying to turn these standards into some kind of mask, a false persona to be donned only during working hours?

The fact that we are, and seem not to be noticing that that’s what we’re doing, speaks volumes about what’s happening to that underlying natural human decency. Perhaps we could do worse than do away with professionalism altogether? That way at least nobody is being encouraged to pretend to be something they’re not. I’d far rather see who I’m dealing with up front than be part of a disingenuous pantomime in which the human being I’m speaking to behaves more like some kind of unhuman robot. “Professionalism” seems to have become almost a by-word for putting distance between people, which hardly seems to be in the best interests of good communication or in the spirit of what it’s all about.

Genuine heartfelt core personal ethical standards and values render “professionalism” pretty much redundant. They’re not enforced by legislation and policing, but learned through example and experience, and are far more pragmatic and flexible as a result. They’re not part-time and partly owned by some faceless organisation, but are something for which every individual who holds them is wholly responsible and permanently engaged with. They’re not something to aspire to or indulge in pride or arch superiority over, they’re just the product of natural ordinary human decency and respect for one another. Isn’t this where we should be placing our emphasis instead of adding yet more layers to a hollow mask?

Once again it seems we’re putting all the emphasis on the ultimates, outer appearances, instead of considering the underlying state that spontaneously gives rise to the desired behaviour.



1984 in 2006

Wednesday, June 28th, 2006

Big Brother

“It is becoming ever more obvious that it is not famine, not earthquakes, not microbes, not cancer but man himself who is man’s greatest danger to man, for the simple reason that there is no adequate protection against psychic epidemics which are infinitely more devastating than the worst of natural catastrophes.”
C G Jung, ‘The Undiscovered Self’

What a seriously depressing past 24 hours! Having taken a long and deliberate break from it, I made the mistake of paying some attention to the daily news. There should be a government health warning attached to it. Perhaps we could even get vaccinated against it?

First we have the leaders of both main political parties in the UK falling over each other to instigate the repeal of what little human rights legislation we have left. Apparently this is all in the interests of protecting us from “terrorists”. That excuse is wearing dreadfully thin these days. The simple fact is there would be no “terrorists” if our government weren’t meddling in business it’s no business trying to make business out of in the first place. So who are the real terrorists? The governments who blithely march into other countries as if they had the god-given right to do so on the basis of a lie, or the people of those countries who quite rightly object to being invaded for no good reason?

Then we have a piece in the Daily Telegraph – for those that don’t know it, a paper with rather right wing viewpoints and not one I usually find much sympathy with – by Social Affairs correspondent Sarah Womack on “the biggest state intrusion in history into the role of parents”. We are told that, subsequent to the provisions of the 2004 Children’s Act, the government is to maintain a database on the nation’s 11-12 million children, monitoring everything from their educational performance against state targets to whether or not they’re eating their five portions of fruit and veg a day, and that transgressions on more than 2 counts will automatically spark an investigation. (Quite how they propose to action this is anyone’s guess, given the startling incompetence habitually displayed by state bureaucracy at all levels of organisation, but it’s the thought that counts.)

I’m not sure where it came from, but all of a sudden John McEnroe’s voice sounded loud and clear in my head (I guess it must be about Wimbledon time again?). “You cannot be serious!” At least the leader in the same paper had the sense to highlight the sheer insanity of giving more power to state intervention in children’s lives when it was the failure of every single existing state intervention that was largely responsible for the incident that supposedly sparked off this entire initiative!

And lastly – things always seem to come in threes – there are 30 members of the medical profession attempting to cajole the population into greater uptake of the MMR vaccination, claiming there are no proven associations with autism and that the risk of not having the vaccine is far greater than having it. If these people are to be taken seriously, it really is little short of a miracle how the human race has managed to survive for so long against the onslaught of so many dangerous diseases without the benefit of modern pharmaceutical interventions. The reason we have is that we possess immune systems which, like muscles, need to be exercised if they’re to build up any strength. Childhood diseases were traditionally (and still are in many cultures) regarded as an essential part of the maturation of a healthy immune system. In some parts of India, measles is regarded as a visitation from a goddess for the developmental leap that children frequently take after a bout. And yes, there are casualities, but there will always be casualties. Sickness and death is an inescapable part of life, and survival of the fittest is nature’s way of ensuring the health of all species.

Ultimately, it all seems to be about a need to feel in control. It’s apparently acceptable for there to be casualties from vaccination, because it’s being done under human control, ostensibly for the benefit of all (leaving aside the pharmaceutical industry agenda for the moment). But it’s not acceptable to leave it up to nature to do the same thing for the same reasons, because it’s not under human control. Western society’s distrust of what created us, what we’re part of and what we’re evolving within is almost incomprehensible from any objective standpoint. Personally, I’ll take my chances with nature any time. Not least because in trying to reduce the relatively few casualties of relatively minor childhood diseases by supplanting the role of the immune system rather than supporting it, it would appear that what is being sacrificed is the immune system’s long-term strength and integrity. Is it any accident that the rise in immune-deficiency conditions and syndromes is almost an entirely post-vaccination phenomenon, and that the more pharmaceutical interventions a person is subject to, the weaker their immune system becomes?

We have naturally evolved to be cooperative but predominantly self-supporting organisms, and the ability to exist as such might be considered a partial definition of health, not least in the freedom it gives us to pursue our own paths, our own genius in life, whether that be a solitary path or one dedicated to working with others. The more dependence we place on external agencies – pharmaceuticals, bureaucracies or governments, for instance – the less ablility we have to be self-supporting, the more subject we become to the vagaries and agendas of those external agencies on which we depend, and the less freedom we have as individuals. It seems somewhat illogical that we should so willingly give up our freedoms just because some external agency claims it’s “on our side”, and continue to do so even when its actions frequently contradict its claims, while another which dosn’t make such claims we will fight tooth and claw. Giving up freedom is, after all, giving up freedom, whoever it’s given to.

Of course we need to cooperate as a species to survive and build our societies. But the willing cooperation of free individuals (government by the people for the people) is a long long way from the situation that presently obtains pretty much anywhere. It’s what we hold as our ideal. It’s what we think we’re fighting for. But it’s not what we’ve got. Isn’t it time we woke up and noticed the difference? And realised that the main repositories of power in our societies are on an express train headed in precisely the opposite direction? Western society is firmly in the grip of the oldest mafiosi trick in the book; a protection racket of global proportions.



Monsantoing the line

Friday, June 2nd, 2006

“Democracy is an abuse of statistics.”
Jorge Luis Borges

Following on from the last post (Evidence? What evidence?) on the lack of depth and rigour in much of what passes for scientific analysis these days, we veer back again into the dirty tricks department.

This from George Monbiot writing in The Guardian, Tuesday May 14:

The Fake Persuaders
Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet

Persuasion works best when it’s invisible. The most effective marketing worms its way into our consciousness, leaving intact the perception that we have reached our opinions and made our choices independently. As old as humankind itself, over the past few years this approach has been refined, with the help of the internet, into a technique called “viral marketing”. Last month, the viruses appear to have murdered their host. One of the world’s foremost scientific journals was persuaded to do something it had never done before, and retract a paper it had published.

> > read on

What is even more interesting is the extent to which this form of ‘marketing’ seeems to have acquired tacit acceptance even amongst those who are holding it up to us as a shining example of corporate immorality. The thing is, we already have a perfectly good term for ‘viral marketing’. It’s called fraud, and there’s pretty clear and long-standing legislation available in most countries for dealing with it.

Further reading on Monsanto’s style of doing business:
The Ecologist



DISCLAIMER
Thanks to the current insanity revolving around homeopathy in this country, in both media and blogosphere, it's become necessary to insult your intelligence by explicitly drawing your attention to the obvious fact that any views or advice in this weblog/website are, unless stated otherwise, the opinions of the author alone and should not be taken as a substitute for medical advice or treatment. If you choose to take anything from here that might be construed as advice, you do so entirely under your own recognisance and responsibility.

smeddum.net - Blog: Confessions of a Serial Prover. Weblog on homeopathy, health and related subjects by homeopathic practitioner Wendy Howard