Why War?

[mothandrust]

Why War?


30th July I932

Dear Professor Freud,

The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation at Paris that I should invite a person, to be chosen by myself, to a frank exchange of views on any problem that I might select affords me a very welcome opportunity of conferring with you upon a question which, as things now are, seems the most insistent of all the problems civilisation has to face. This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war? It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to, mean a matter of life and death for civilisation as we know it; nevertheless for all the 'zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.

I believe, moreover, that those whose duty it is to tackle the problem professionally and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively desire to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world-problems in the perspective distance lends. As for me, the normal objective of my thought affords no insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus, in the inquiry now proposed, I can do little more than seek to clarify the question at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions, enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man's instinctive life to bear upon the problem. There are certain psychological obstacles whose existence a layman in the mental sciences may dimly surmise, but whose interrelations and vagaries he is incompetent to fathom; you, I am convinced, will be able to suggest educative methods, lying more or less outside the scope of politics, which will eliminate these obstacles.

As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e. administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to accept its judgements unreservedly and to carry out every measure the tribunal deems necessary for the execution of its decrees. But here, at the outset, I come up against a difficulty; a tribunal is a human institution which, in proportion as the power at its disposal is inadequate to enforce its verdicts, is all the more prone to suffer these to be deflected by extrajudicial pressure. This is a fact with which we have to reckon; law and might inevitably go hand in hand, and juridical decisions approach more nearly the ideal justice demanded by the community (in whose name and interests these verdicts are pronounced) in so far as the community has effective power to compel respect of its juridical ideal. But at present we are far from possessing any supranational organisation competent to render verdicts of incontestable authority and enforce absolute submission to the execution of its verdicts. Thus I am led to my first axiom: the quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action, its sovereignty that is to say, and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security.

The ill-success, despite their obvious sincerity, of an the efforts made during the last decade to reach this goal leave us no room to doubt that strong psychological factors are at work, which paralyse these efforts. Some of these factors are not far to seek. The craving for power which characterises the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This political power-hunger is wont to batten on the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have specially in mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority.

But recognition of this obvious fact is merely the first step towards an appreciation of the actual state of affairs. Another question follows hard upon it: How is it possible for this small clique to bend the will of the majority, who stand to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions? (In speaking of the majority, I do not exclude soldiers of every rank who have chosen war as their profession, in the belief that they are serving to defend the highest interests of their race, and that attack is often the best method of defence.) An obvious answer to this question would seem to be that the minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organise and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.

Yet even this answer does not provide a complete solution. Another question arises from it: How is it these devices succeed so well in rousing men to such wild enthusiasm, even to sacrifice their lives? Only one answer is possible. Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction. In normal times this passion exists in a latent state, it emerges only in unusual circumstances; but it is a comparatively easy task to call it into play and raise it to the power of a collective psychosis. Here lies, perhaps, the crux of all the complex of factors we are considering, an enigma that only the expert in the lore of human instincts can resolve.

And so we come to our last question. Is it possible to control man's mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called 'Intelligentsia' that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw, but encounters it in its easiest synthetic form - upon the printed page.

To conclude: I have so far been speaking only of war, between nations; what are known as international conflicts. But I am well aware that the aggressive instinct operates under other forms and in other circumstances. (I am thinking of civil wars, for instance, due in earlier days to religious zeal, but nowadays to social factors; or, again, the persecution of racial minorities.) But my insistence on what is the most typical, most cruel and extravagant form of conflict between man and man was deliberate, for here we have the best occasion of discovering ways and means to render all armed conflicts impossible.

I know that in your writings we may find answers, explicit or implied, to all the issues of this urgent and absorbing problem. But it would be of the greatest service to us all were you to present the problem of world peace in the light of your most recent discoveries, for such a presentation well might blaze the trail for new and fruitful modes of action.

Yours very sincerely,


A. EINSTEIN

(Freud's response runs to 7 pages but i can easily post it upon request)

[ccarota]

MnR, I wasn't aware of this document before you pointed out, but beyond the language used, i can't see much difference between this and Kant's Perpetual Peace... both tend to blame nationalism and man's brutality and lack of evolution for the problem at hand, and both propose a global organization to enforce treaties and maintain "peace" through political force. Both are based on looking at the problem from a utopian point of view, and both approach the solution by trying to create a utopia by imposing a different, or higher form of authority.

As you pointed out in the excellent post which prompted this one, (others should read it to fully understand this post) many of the "great thinkers" of academia are super dumb when it comes to conspiracy, because it has so do with manipulation and denial and emotional responses. So who's to say that Einstein, despite all his genius, was any less clueless when it comes to conspiracy in history. I think that Einstein could have been limited in his thinking conspiracy wise, as none of the letters or editorials I've read of his incorporate a conspiratorial view of history. He was certainly was vocally opposed to Zionism even before the state of Israel was established, and he certainly recognized the functions of fascism.

Even in a place like Conspiracy Central, where everyone is educated on the machinations of fascism, people don't always have a conspiratorial view of history ie, that all of history is controlled, that a global collective is not coming, but exists... that fascist "states" are setup and used to create wars and move people towards revolution and greater government control... that a depopulation plan is in place that requires that we be divided along national, racial, sexual and religious lines... and that genocide is engineered as a means to try and "control" human evolution (as Einstein literally suggests above) for the survival of the system. Meanwhile, the most educated people are talking about how everyone else is sheep because they don't see fascism... never realizing that they are sheep too, if they cannot see beyond it.

Any effective system of control has to account for how people of varying degrees of "intelligence" and "education" might react to the "state of the world", as its presented to us in school and in the media. From the so-called dumbest, to the so-called brightest, the system must acount for it. As I mentioned in my post in "Would you describe yourself as a 'patriot'? ", Geopolitics is an example of a how intelligent people are taught to accept the cover story of nationalism on an intellectual level.. on an emotional level, I think religion and morality is used to focus our reaction towards our perception of what's most overtly evil (like fascist death cults). They end up believing that they are fighting the ultimate enemy of enemies, and but they can't see beyond the focus of their blame

In this letter, Einstein points to ,humanity as the ultimate enemy and from the sound of it, he was using Freud's own theories about "repressed" human emotions to explain all of history. It seemed almost like he was pandering to him so that he might explain this theory to the world and help him create a utopia by directing human evolution through rationality. Have you ever seen Adam Curtis's "The Century of The Self"? It's about how Freud's theories about the subconscious were used to manipulate people into not just accepting, but supporting capitalist despotism as a imposed form of utopian "democracy". These "uncontrollable forces" are not only controllable (by the system), they are predictable, and those in control know exactly how to play us by understanding them.

Neither Einstein nor Freud seemed to get this, and from what I understand both died really depressed and blaming human emotion, rather than systematic control of those emotions, for the worlds problems... and both propose using systems of authority to create "something better" for the poor unevolved sods who can't control themselves. Self-righteousness is no excuse for such folly, even if one's intent is to create "a better world". Has it ever worked? Not to my knowledge, but somehow the world is made to look so hopeless that we can alwasy be manipulated into trying.

Einstein was dyslexic, and I've always looked up to him for shunning the school system, and for thinking outside of the box when it came to time and space. But at the same time, he got suckered. He got suckered into creating the atomic bomb, and he got co-opted by working with the military to help fight Nazis, and he probably compromised his own ethics in doing so.. hence the reason he might try so hard to redeem himself, as per this letter. How was he suckered? Because he felt, to some degree, that when fighting evil, "any means necessary" could be condoned. But look how nukes have been used ever since.. to keep people in fear, to control them... And whether that was his intent or not, its his personal responsibility.

No wonder he was so drastic in his proposal for internationalism... if he knew that he had created a destructive force so powerful that is "human emotion" was the only thing to stop it from being used, then the world would be destroyed. But it was, because human emotion isn't in control.. the system is. And it need us to be in fear to believe it exist, hence the need for millions of people to died, whether in the holocaust or the nuclear explosion, so that no one will dispute it. And so no one would dispute the global system he suggested above... a controlled reaction, planned years in advance, involving millions of human lives and the entire world in staged events, all to perpetuate fear and hopelessness. Why War indeed.

---

I often find it very difficult to discuss the dangers of utopianism with smart, educated folks... so many intelligent people have fallen into believing that utopianism is the solution to nationalism, when in fact, it is just part of a dialectic installed during our stint in the institutional education system, engineered to create a controlled reaction to the "state of the world" painted by "history" and "news". But when we find out that the facts they taught us were all bullshit, we reject what we were taught, because we can see the obvious lies. But some lies aren't as obvious. The Utopian ideals we are taught in school have have a great effect on us and are often the best part of our education, they seem more true once we see the lies, on an emotional level. Because when we look at the world on a geopolitical level, it paints a very bleak, limited point of view, and a terminal feeling of hopelessness. So even if we throw out everything else, we retain our utopian ideals because they give us a sense of hope...

But who needs an ideal that is implanted, one that is based on a systematic lie such as nationalism. Our ideals THEMSELVES are very real, very personal, and a big part of who we are. But if they are based on fighting against nationalism, they no longer personal or individual, they exist as a way of co-opting out power and beliefs, focusing them, using them, and draining them in a way that the system can predict. What the system is designed to do, above all, is convince people to give up their individual freedom and join a consensus. Then the consensus is forced into fighting it's polarity (peace/war), by creating and using new forms of authority to bring it about. We are led to believe that they are replacing "bad" forms of authority with "good" forms of authority. But every system of authority can be used for god or bad, depending on who's in control, so no new system is any different form the old ones.

Its this moral division which nets most intellectual thinkers. Utopianism encourages self-righteousness, so the architects of the new world never realize that they have both "good" and "bad" inside them, and therefor any system they create will be a reflection of that... and therefore easily corrupted, co-opted and brought within the control of the system at large. The system works by getting us to impose authority on each other... Personally, I see this as a grand maneuverer to both convince us that we have no power, and to convince us that "something has to be done" about it... what a contradiction! Human perception is power, and it can never be taken away... so it must be USED by the system.

We have the power to see, and so he system wants to blind us, so we deploy our power in a way that perpetuate war, even if we think we are fighting for peace. In a world of lies, building your own awareness up and taking personal responsibility for how you use it will do far more "good" for the world than any treaty. If everyone could acknowledge this, then I believe we'd arrive at some form of synchronistic utopia without ever having to impose it on anyone. I suppose that is my ideal.

-Chris

[mothandrust]

great post Chris, can't do justice to a response now - interesting your Kant comparison, that needs some deep consideration - but just wanted to say, this was written in 1932.

[Rod]

I’ve been doing some reading on Einstein and have come to the conclusion that he is a “Tragic Figure” in history (in the literary sense). He wasn’t a Zionist, but he was co-opted into the Zionist agendas. There is some instersting info HERE. Seeing as the site is pro zionism I have to assume its being honest about Einstein and his roles.

To quote Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar.”

But to end this, I have to say he was a troubled man, caught between a rock and a hard place. I imagine he was making a lot of concessions within himself to justify things he was diametrically opposed to. In the end, I’m left with a mixed bag, I guess I’ll just have to come back to this at a latter date. He isn’t the devil I originally painted him to be, but he sure as hell is no saint and I’m not saying that in the sense that he had a few flaws. The man had some serious issues with honesty and truth. I guess I came to this conclusion because I hate the idea of stealing anthers idea’s. I spent the majority of my life behind a camera and nothing pissed me off more than another photographer claiming my work as their own. The whole Hilbert issue is really making it hard for me to come to grips with the man.

Some say he didn’t, some say he did, I don’t know, but my gut smells a rat and regardless of how the “intellectuals” find on the matter its going to be an open sore to me. This scientific thievery accusation which has believable merit, will probably forever scare how I’m able to perceive him or his work.

[mothandrust]

Quote:MnR, I wasn't aware of this document before you pointed out, but beyond the language used, i can't see much difference between this and Kant's Perpetual Peace... both tend to blame nationalism and man's brutality and lack of evolution for the problem at hand, and both propose a global organization to enforce treaties and maintain "peace" through political force. Both are based on looking at the problem from a utopian point of view, and both approach the solution by trying to create a utopia by imposing a different, or higher form of authority.

well, my problem might then be the language used by Kant. in fact i'm sure Kant's academespeak was a fundamental problem for me - most of the time i could not make head nor tail of it. what with that an the inconsistencies and contradictions, and that he placed authority above the law, was foundationally subservient, did not believe barbers should get the vote, was so horribly unaware of the real world (as of course most academics are), and worst of all, saw nature as something fearful and man in nature as a violent loner (just as Hobbes before him). effectively, Kant's start position is flawed. he can never offer valid reasons because of his interests and his prejudices. plus of course, no normal person can understand what he is going on about! and if a broad spectrum of people cannot understand you (e.g. Christ, Buddha, Mohamed, Rousseau) then your words become nothing but tools of authority.

Kant's fundamental problem (it is a problem almost the whole of academia suffers from), was that he believes the world's problems can be solved through reason. Rousseau recognises passion trumps reason every time.

the thing about Einstein's writing is that i understand it, at least it speaks to me directly. probably something to do with being dyslexic (and no doubt why i instinctively want to attach myself to him). i suspect Rousseau may have been too, because of his extraordinary talents (he wrote the best selling novel of the 18th century and Louis XV's favourite opera) and his words have the same effect. sorry, this is a bit off topic.

further, i'm not saying i agree with everything Einstein writes (or Rousseau, or anyone) (i suspect this is a constant problem with postings (it is mine - if i only posted stuff i agreed with, i'd never post anything)). it just seemed honest, genuine, and, as i said, a breath of fresh air. i was particularly enamored with this quote:

Einstein Wrote:The craving for power which characterises the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This political power-hunger is wont to batten on the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have specially in mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority.

which (at the time) seemed to say it all. and, what's more, i couldn't understand why no one at uni was prepared to examine this exchange of letters between two of the most renowned thinkers while we were supposed to be discussing the causes of war. i think i went rapidly down (up) hill from there. one must also remember he was a physicist not a political theorist and as such will have no more than a general (and so it seems naive) perspective.

just one (or two) more point(s). i don't think Einstein is blaming nationalism, i think he is blaming "the governing class" and "small but determined groups", although accepted, both look to some higher authority to exercise control. but, i ask you, who doesn't? and what's wrong with a Utopian ideal? what do you want for you kids, and their kids..? a world where humanity can find oneness, perhaps?

fuckin' hell, i've only addressed one paragraph, knew this response was going to take all night, but it seems it'll be more like a week of nights. gotta have a break and a smoke and perhaps i'll look at some of the other stuff i'm supposed to be doing.

more soon or somewhere

big hugs

[rsol]

He got suckered into creating the atomic bomb?

Creating the atomic bomb??? Are you insane? Thats like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition. He was not and engineer all he did was come up with a theory relating energy to mass. THATS IT!!! Please look up Theoretical Physics. This has nothing to do with engineering. Engineers created the bomb using his theory. to quote wiki:

"In the United States, three Hungarian Jewish refugee physicists—Leó Szilárd, Edward Teller, and Eugene Wigner—believed that the energy released in nuclear fission might be used in bombs by the Germans. Germany had made many early discoveries in the physics of fission and still had many formidable physicists, including Werner Heisenberg, despite the expulsion of Jewish academics. The refugee scientists were desperate to encourage further research in the United States. Politically marginalized however, they sought the assistance of Albert Einstein, the world's most famous physicist at the time and also a Jewish refugee. They helped Einstein draft a letter which they delivered to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Einstein-Szilárd letter was written on August 2, 1939, mostly by Szilárd, warning that "extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed" by means of nuclear fission."

They were warning the president that the Germans could be doing it. THATS IT. He did not invent the bomb. If you want to blame anyone for its invention you should look at General Leslie Groves and physicist Robert Oppenheimer. The brains and brawn of the operation. But even they were working for US.gov

[mothandrust]

Quote:He got suckered into creating the atomic bomb?

Creating the atomic bomb??? Are you insane? Thats like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition.

nice analogy

[ccarota]

MnR, I can't believe you endorsed that ridiculous analogy... that was joke right? Time to take off the rose colored glasses, guys... Looks like I'm challenging your assumptions, and that's what I wanted to do.

Einstein wanted the bomb built and used, so I am asserting that he was "suckered" into believing that it was necessary by his absolute belief in nationalism as a root cause of war. He actively participated and encouraged president Roosevelt to build it, knowing that his equation was instrumental in the development in achieving a chain reaction. I'm not blaming him for it, I'm incorporating his involvement into the context of the delusion.

From the Enola Gay Letter, August 2nd, 1939:

"In the course of the last four months it has been made probable -- through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America -- that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable -- though much less certain -- that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. "


All of Einsteins letters to Roosevelt can be found here:

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml

-Chris

[mothandrust]

yeah, OK Chris, perhaps (upon reflection) it was not the greatest analogy:blush:

but it is true that great thinkers throughout history have been used as an excuse for appalling devastation and vioence - Jesus, Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche..., none of whom advocated it.

[ccarota]

Quote:...but it is true that great thinkers throughout history have been used as an excuse for appalling devastation and vioence - Jesus, Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche..., none of whom advocated it.

I hear you, and can I agree that all were the "victims" of disinformation, but it is our present mode operation to blame others and obscure our own personal responsibilities, so it doesn't surprise me. I don't see it as any more effective than blaming despots and tyrants and states so we don't need to have any blame ourselves. The only difference with blaming utopians is that we often look UP to them as being "good", and we believe they beyond blame because of their high ideals and intent... just as we think that we are "good", and beyond blame in the big scheme of things.

Personally, I can't live that way. Pragmatically, I believe we have to take personal responsibility for everything we do and everything that happens to us, how we express ourselves, how we influence others, how our intentions blind us from objectively seeing the results, and most importantly, what may come of our ideas once we publicly advocate them. And that's what I do, more now then ever, is advocate a cognitive world view...

A lot of what I write about could be extremely shocking to the imagination if you are not aware that these things are possible. Given that state of ignorance and blame, I know that my words and ideas could be construed and used by some as excuse for violence and destruction... so I keep that in mind at all times, and it informs all my writing and everything I do. I do my best to avoid it, but if some did make a "bomb" from my insights, and I had actually encouraged them to lead and even do "something", I would have to accept some copability in the psychic bombs destructive power.

I have always made this possibility the primary focus of my responsibility on ConCen... hence the reason I started the "What if We Are Crashing The System" thread... when shit goes go down, we'll be ready, we can go back and see some understanding of how and why it did. If not, that's great, I'd prefer to be wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think so.... and I can't stop including this point of view on conspiracy.

I know that describing the world (accurately) as a dystopia can and does radicalize people into emotional and often revolutionary reactions. I try an be ware of that in all my posts, so at least half of all the material I publish an write upon is related to some form of self empowerments, self-knowledge and spiritual discovery... because the effects of studying the global dystopia can be violent and devastating to the human heart. That is why I try to incorporate a conspiratorial view of history into what is happening to our minds... it has been planned, this devastation and radicalization of the heart... planned as a cover story for something much larger and more encompassing than the 20th Century "map" of history could contain.

-Chris

[mothandrust]

Chris, i didn't want to break this down into quote after quote, so i've interspersed your post with my comments in green.

I hear you, and can I agree that all were the "victims" of disinformation, but it is our present mode operation to blame others and obscure our own personal responsibilities, so it doesn't surprise me. i'm completely with you, i detest the culture of blame. it is limited in its conceptualisation, dishonest and profoundly unhelpful in coming to terms with our world's most difficult problems (as Einstein said, "the significant problems we face can never be solved at the level of thinking that created them" - perhaps he forgot when he was writing to FDR (wonder if he would have written to Truman?), or maybe he sussed it out afterwards). but, also, let us not forget forgiveness I don't see it as any more effective than blaming despots and tyrants and states so we don't need to have any blame ourselves. The only difference with blaming utopians is that we often look UP to them as being "good", and we believe they beyond blame because of their high ideals and intent... just as we think that we are "good", and beyond blame in the big scheme of things. agreed, although personally i'd rather not look up to them, nor think of them in terms of "good" (ok, yeah, i fail in my ideals sometimes). i prefer to think in terms of awareness and association (perhaps more delusion - knowing how difficult it is to remove admiration from the equation)

Personally, I can't live that way. Pragmatically, I believe we have to take personal responsibility for everything we do and everything that happens to us, how we express ourselves, how we influence others, how our intentions blind us from objectively seeing the results, and most importantly, what may come of our ideas once we publicly advocate them. And that's what I do, more now then ever, is advocate a cognitive world view... think we are really close here Chris, taking personal responsibility for one's actions and words, with the development of knowledge as a process towards understanding, wisdom (i wish:grin:).

A lot of what I write about could be extremely shocking to the imagination if you are not aware that these things are possible. ditto Given that state of ignorance and blame, I know that my words and ideas could be construed and used by some as excuse for violence and destruction... so I keep that in mind at all times, and it informs all my writing and everything I do. hmm... thinking about this one... i don't think there is any validation for violence in anything i write... but then, to my knowledge there's nothing in Rousseau either, or, come to that, Christ (although accepted, lots was added afterwards) - it seems therefore, no matter how careful you are, if your words strike a chord and they challenge they status quo violence will not be far behind (whether your words validate it or not) I di y best to avoid it, but if some did make a "bomb" from my insights, and I had actually encouraged them to lead and even do "something", I would have to accept some copability in the bombs destructive power. your logic is indisputable

I have always made this possibility the primary focus of my responsibility on ConCen... hence the reason I started the "What if We Are Crashing The System" thread... when shit does go down, we can go back and see some understanding of how and why it did. If not, thats great, I'd prefer to be wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think I am, so I'm goign to stop. well we all have to look towards and approach the future the best way we know how. it is not my position to judge. personally, i reckon when it goes down there won't be any internet, or any power come to that. although i guess there'll be plenty of time for reflection. i should go back and reconsider this thread, perhaps i will - just when i came to it, it was already four pages long, and by the time i got to the end, i'd forgotten where it started (shit for brains)

I know that describing the world (accurately) as a dystopia can and does radicalize people into emotional and often revolutionary reactions. I try an be ware of that in all my posts, so at least half of all the material I publish an write apon is related to some form of self empowerments, self-knowledge and spiritual discovery... because the effects of studying the global dystopia can be violent and devastating to the human heart. true. perhaps i am not as careful as you, nor as organised, focused, coherent... i suspect i am too prone to writing how and what i feel. but then if one is considering a Daoist perspective (Zen too, i believe) all things happen at the appropriate time (i take much comfort in this) That is why I try and incorporate a conspiratorial view of history into what is actually happening to our our minds... it may have been planned, this devastation of the heart and radicalization... planned as a cover story for something much larger and more encompassing than the 20th Century "map" of history can contain. yeah, maybe, i don't know. it seems with or without secret agendas and secret societies, there's enough corrupt, greedy, fearful people and enough appropriate philosophies (Hobbes, Locke, Smith...) to explain the world in the most negative terms anyway. i know not what's planned, but i am aware plans never turn out as one expects. our fall i see as inevitable, with or without Jesuilluminazionists (thanks MaD). it's what comes after that interests me.

big hugs,

j

[ccarota]

You know I detest the quoting system. Thats was an awesome way of quoting man, really.

Thank you!

When I said Crashing the System would give us a way of looking back, I didn't mean looking at the thread on the internet, but rather, looking into our own memories. It is a record of our awareness, and a way of marking a point in time, so we can remeber and take responsibility for it... even in the final moments of our lives.

-Chris

[mothandrust]

well there you go, that'll be me being too literal again :biggrin:

[itmakesmewonder]

A joy to read that letter. If only they listened!
I dont think Einstein wanted to be in any gang, any nation or political group. He was a real sweety.
He said
"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous."